PERKINS  LIBRARY 

Uulce   University 


Kare   Dook: 


1903 


Gift  of  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Dred  Peacock 


ff-v-t.^^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2011  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/expositionoflateOOcape 


\N 


EXPOSITION 


OK    THK     I. ATI;    !»CHTSM 


In  the  iVlcthodist  Episcoiial  Ciiiircli  in  Charleston, 


IX    WHICH. 


THE  CONDUCT  OF  THE  SCHISMATICS,  AND  THE  COURSE  OF 

THE   CHURCH    TOWARDS    THEM,    ARE    FULLY    SET 

FORTH,   AND    THEIR    COMPLAINTS   AGAINST 

THE  MINISTRY   ANSWERED. 


'He  that  is  first  in  his  own  cause  seemeth  just,  but  his  neighbor 
Cometh  and  searcheth  him." — Proverbs  xviii.  17. 


*»§§t 


PRI>TKD  HY  .1.  S.   RrRGK-S,    183  KING-ST- 

1834. 


^ 


u 


PREFACE. 

The  public  has  been  apprised  of  the  late  troubles  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Cliarleston:  and  which  lesult- 
cd  in  the  expulsion  of  some,  and  the  withdrawal  of  others, 
from  the  communion  of  the  Church.  A  pamphlet  has  been 
p»iblished  by  the  expelled  persons,  with  the  sanction  of  their 
friends,  purporting  to  be  an  exposition  of  the  matter:  but 
which  we  consider  erroneous  in  its  facts,  and  libellous  in  its 
personalities.  This  is  the  occasion  of  the  present  publica- 
tion. 

The  form  in  which  we  present  this  our  Exposition  to  the 
public,  and  which,  under  other  circumstances,  would  not  be 
preferred  to  an  uniform  unbroken  narrative,  is  owing  to  the 
following  considerations: — 1st.  The  events  transpired  during 
parts  of  two  several  Conference  years,  under  the  administra- 
tion of  difierent  ministers,  each  being  distinctly  responsible 
for  his  own  acts,  in  administering  the  Discipline.  2d.  Near 
the  c!ose  of  the  month  of  November  last,  the  minister  then  in 
charge,  deemed  it  proper  to  lay  before  the  members  of  the 
Church,  a  succinct  account  of  the  rise  and  progress  of  these 
difficulties  in  the  Church,  up  to  that  time.  This  account, 
which  was  then  furnished  to  the  membei's  generally,  was  nevev 
contradicted  in  any  of  its  statements:  but.  as  far  as  we  have 
understood,  was  admitted  on  all  hands  to  be  faithful  in  its 
facts;  we  therefore  prefer  to  abide  by  it  for  the  time  of  which 
treats,  rather  than  go  over  the  same  ground  at  the  present 
time.  It  derives  a  claim  to  a\itheuticity  from  the  circum- 
stance of  its  having  been  so  long  under  observation,  without 
being  objected  to. 

We  have  appended  to  oui-  Exposition,  the  pamphlet  of  the 
schismatics,  to  winch  ours  is  a  i'e])ly:  and  we  have  done  so  for 
two  reasons.  1st.  We  are  w  illing  to  show  all  justice  towards 
them,  and  irive  the  public  the  fairest  possible  opportunity  of 
judging  between  us.  2d.  The  charges  brought  against  us  are 
so  gross,  and  evidently  conceived  in  a  bitter  and  uncharitable 
spirit,  that  we  prefer  to  have  them  stated,  without  abridg- 
ment, bv  themselves.  W.  C. 

W.  M.  K. 

Charleston,  Sept.  Atlu  1834. 


SAVANNAH,  (GEO.)  AUGUST  -ioin,  1834. 

To  Messrs.  Jonx  Kingman,  William  Kirkwood,  William  G.  Mood, 
Olivkr  B.  Hillard.  William  Laval,  F.  A.  Bkckma.v,  W,  W.  Gop- 
JREY  and  John  H.  Honotr. 

Gentlemen: 

I  have  seen  and  read  a  pamphlet  published  hy  you,  which  purports 
to  be  an  exposition  of  the  causes  which  led  to  the  withdrawal  ot'  a  number 
of  the  members  of  the  ^Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Charleston;  and  in 
which  you  say:  "A  proper  regard  for  our  own  standing  in  the  community 
in  which  we  live,  and  a  correction  of  the  t'alse  re|)orts  that  are  in  circula- 
tion, demanded  that  we  should  make  this  public  exposition;  having  done 
so,  the  controvers)-  on  our  part  ceases,  unless  we  arc  compelled  to  renew* 
it  in  self-defence;  and  the  only  favor  we  ask  of  those  with  whom  we  were 
formerly  associated,  is,  to  be  let  alone."  The  notice  which  you  have 
thought  proper  to  bestow  on  myselt",  however,  obliges  me,  gentlemen,  to 
trespass  so  far  on  your  desired  repose,  as  to  let  you  know  that  those  who 
would  be  "let  alone^'  in  possession  of  the  respect  of  society,  ought  not  to 
malign  the  characters  of  otliers.  Farther  than  this  I  intend  not  to  disturb 
you,  but  leave  you  to  God  and  the  day  of  judgment. 

After  making  it  the  burden  of  yo  -ir  pamphlet  to  represent  me,  bv  name, 
us  a  very  wicked  man,  you  seem  to  have  been  put  in  mind  that  otiences  so 
flagitious  as  those  laid  to  my  charge,  ought  to  have  been  represented  to  the 
Conference,  to  whom  I  was  amenable  for  my  conduct,  and  where  my  name 
was  called,  and  the  usual  question  asked,  whether  or  not  there  was  any 
thing  against  me.  And  yciur  neglect  to  do  this  must  appear  the  more  sus- 
picious, as  the  Conference  sat  in  your  city,  and  was  always  accessible  to 
you  for  such  a  purpose.  To  relieve  yourselves  of  this  implication,  without 
throwing  your  manuscript -into  the  fire,  or  blotting  it  two-thirds  out,  you 
have  given  your  reasons  in  an  Appendix,  why  you  did  not  accuse  me  to 
the  Conference,  hut  have  arraigned  me  before  the  public.  As  this  is  a 
point  of  particular  importance,  and  iu  which  I  feel  peculiar  interest,  I  bring 
it  first  to  your  notice.     You  say, 

'•It  was  the  intention  of  the  corporation  party  to  impeach  him,  and  he 
must  have  been  aware  of  the  fact,  for  the  determination  to  do  so  was  re- 
peatedly expressed  in  the  presence  of  his  warm  adherents,  who  it  was  well 
known  repeated  to  him  all  that  they  heard.  That  this  intention  was  not 
executed,  was  in  consequence  of  his  attending  the  session  of  the  Georgia 
Conference, — which  was  held  some  weeks  previous  to  the  sitting  of  the 
South-Carolina  Conference — and  it  having  been  stated  in  the  newspapers, 
that  he  was  to  br^  transferred  to  the  former  Conference,  and  stationed  in 
Savannah;  and  although  Bishop  Emory  very  justly  remarked,  when  intbrm- 
cd  of  the  design  of  the  mf^-mbers  to  impeach,  that  the  Doctor  was  umeu- 


able  to  the  South-Carolina  Conference  until  discharged  from  it;  yet  as' he 
vas  to  fill  au  important  fetation  in  Georgia,  it  was  apprehended  that  his  use- 
fulness might  hi  materially  affected  by  an  exposition  of  his  aristocrjitic 
government  of  the  Church  here,  which  we  did  not  wish  should  be  the 
ease." 

You  say  it  was  the  intention   of  the  corporation  party  to  impeach  me, 
and  1  must   have   been  aware  of  it,  6cc.     But  how  could   you   have  been 
aware  of  it  yoursehes,  gentlemen?     Can  the  intention,  or  determination, 
of  a  party  be  known,  unless   it  be  expressed   by  some  act  or  vote  of  the 
party.'     Was  there  ever  such   an  act  of  your  party?     Or  do  a  few  indivi- 
duals  of  you,  or  your  Diotrephes  alone,  conslitute  the  party,  so  absolutely, 
as  to  make  your  very  iiitenlions  necessarily  their's?     If  the  party  declared 
their  determination   to  imi)each   me.  what  other   act  did   they   afterwards 
perform  to  reverse  the   former  one,  and  decline   my  impeachment?     If  I 
heard  of  any  intention  lo  impeach  me  to  the  Conference  at  all,  I  considered 
it  only  as  an  idle  rumor;  and  never  for  <Mie  moment  apprehended  or  expec- 
ted  an  impeachment.     The  rest  of  what  you  say  to  excuse  yourselves  for 
not  having  impeached  me  to  the  Annual  Conference,  is  so  ambiguous  and 
confused,  that  I  cannot  fix  your  meaning  by  the  words  you  employ,  except 
only,  that  you  did  not  wish  to  injure  my  usefulness.     Do  you  mean  by  what 
you   have  said,   that  my  attending  the  Georgia  Conference,  and  what  was 
said  in  the  newspapers  about  me,  put  me  out  of  your  reach,  or  in  any  way 
interposed  an  obstacle  to  my  impeachment?     You  know  better,  for  I  re- 
turned to  Charleston  about  a  fortiiight  before  the  session  of  the   Confer, 
ence,  and  remained  there  as  the   preacher  in  charge  till  its  adjournment. 
Do  you  mean  that  Bishop  Emory  held  any  conference  with  you  on  the  sub- 
ject of  my   impeachment?  and   that   he  expressed,  or  countenanced,  any 
apprehension  that  my  usefulness  might  bs  "seriously  affected,"  or  affected 
at  all.  should  you  impeach  me?     No,  never,  or  he,  the  Bishop,  should  de- 
serve    to   be  impeached  himself.     And   yet,  if  your    words   con\ey   any 
meaning,  they  seem  to  intend    some    such  aspersions    as  the    foregoing. 
But  you  say  plainly,  ar.d  w  ithout  ambiguity,  that  you  did  not  icish  to  injure 
my  usefulness.     My  usefulness,   Gentleniei!?     Pray,  for  what?     Verily  if 
you  believe  }t)ur  own  pauiphlet,  you  must  account  my  usefulness  as  salt 
Avithout  savor!     Please  turn  to  page  8,  and  read  after  me  as  follows: 

"In  reading  this  pa|)er,  lie  omitted  the  words  'in  its  corporate  capacity,' 
and  then  triumphantly  exclaimed,  tliere  is  not  one  word  of  corporation  in 
the  whole  paper.  A  brother  remarked,  that  there  must  be  some  mistake, 
and  requested  that  the  paper  might  bL'  read  again,  this  was  done,  the  reader 
still  omitting  the  words  'in  its  corporate  capacity,'  and  then  observed, 
brethren  I  read  honestly,  if  any  one  df,ubts  it,  let  l)im  come  and  read  for 
himself.  The  chairman  of  the  Conunittee  who  had  presented  the  resolu- 
tion, arose  to  go  and  read  if,  conscious  that  cither  it  was  not  tlu'  paper  which 
he  had  given  the  Preacher,  or  that  it  had  not  been  read  corn  ctly.  The 
])reachc'r  perceiving  this  movem:jnt  commenced  reading  again,  and  then 
road  the  words,  which  he  had  previously  omitted,  'in  its  corporate  cnpu- 
city,'  observing,  'I  care  not  what  it  says,  I  did  not  call  a  corporation  meet- 
ing,  and  immediately  sat  down.  Astonishment  was  depie(ed  on  every  coun. 
tena'ice,  and  for  a  moment  or  two  a  deathlike  silence  prevailed.  Such 
conduct  needs  no  comment.  We  simply  slate  facts  susceptible  of  the  most 
irrefragable  o^  idencc." 


After  sucli  iaiquity  us  this,  and  nuicli  more  of  a  like  kiiiil,  \vitli  Mliicli 
you  have  charged  me,  1  wonder  you  should  not  respect  yourselves  more 
than  to  pretend  to  any  regard  for  my  iLsef illness.  ''Unto  the  wicked  God 
saith,  what  hast  thou  to  do  to  declare  my  stattdes,  or  that  thou  shouldst  take 
my  covenant  in  thy  mouth.''^  Would  you  send  "a  wolf  in  sheep's  clothing," 
to  be  a  usciul  pastor  of  a  flock? 

But  wiiy  have  you  published  the  pamphlet  before  me?  You  have  stated 
this  question,  and  answered  it  for  yourselves,  as  follows: 

"But  it  may  be  asketi,  wliy  array  his  conduct  before  the  public?  It 
miglit  be  suflicient  to  answer,  our  own  justification  required  it.  But  this 
is  not  all — when  he  removed  to  another  ConferenctJ,  it  was  expected  he 
would  devote  himself  exclusively  to  the  duties  of  his  charge;  now  it  is 
known,  that  tiiough  absent  in  body,  he  was  present  in  the  minds  of  those 
A\ho  remained,  and  wlio  succeeded  him  on  the  station;  and  we  have  good 
reason  to  believe,  that  a  constant  communication  has  been  kept  up,  and  no 
step  of  consequence  was  ventured  on  without  consulting  him.  The 
preachers  themselves  have  declared,  that  he  approved  and  sanctioned,  if  he 
did  not  recommend  the  course  pursued  by  them.  Thus,  he  who  caused 
the  agitation,  and  had  retired  from  the  conflict,  looking  through  the  vista 
of  120  miles,  to  a  station  which  he  contemplates  lilling  at  the  end  of  the 
])resent  year,  has  had  the  address  yo  to  use  tl\e  preachers  here,  as  to  obtain 
the  removal  of  those  who  he  kucAv  would  oppose  his  return,  because  they 
were  aware  of  his  ability  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Church." 

First,  then,  and  principally,  you  have  published  your  abuse  of  me,  he. 
cause  your  own  justification  required^  it.  But  how  so?  As  well  as  I  can 
make  out  your  [)am])hlet,  you  profess  to  have  been  driven  from  the  Church 
by  the  tyranny  of  the  preachers.  You  say,  "/«  consequence  of  this  arbi- 
trary and  despotic  proceeding,''  (meaning  the  proceeding  by  v  iiich  you. 
eight  gentlemen  were  cx])clled,  as  stated  in  your  pamphlet,)  "ccorthy  of  a  Rus- 
sian autocrat  or  the  Cham  of  Tartary,  nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty  mem- 
bers have  withdrawn  from  the  Church,  and  now  appeal  to  an  enlightened 
public  for  a  justification  of  their  conduct.'''  And  farther  on  you  saA, 
"  With  our  present  knowledge  of  the  despotic  power  given  to  the  ministry  by 
the  Discipline,  we  never  can  again  consent  to  be  members,  without  sacrificing 
the  inalienable  rights  which  God  has  given  us,  and  in  defence  of  which,  we 
have  the  laws  of  our  country.'^  Really,  Gentlemen!  who  ever  interfered 
with  your  religious  liberty?  Did  you  not  come  into  the  Church,  and  under 
tlic  authority  of  its  Discipline,  of  your  own  free  will?  And  was  not  the 
way  out  of  it,  always  as  open  for  j'ou  as  you  found  the  way  in/  Unless 
you  charge  me  with  some  act  of  despotic  power,  by  which,  during  mv 
administration  of  the  Discipline  hi  the  Church  in  Charleston,  I  transcended 
my  duty  as  a  Methodist  preacher,  myself  being  subject,  equally  with  you,  to 
the  authority  of  the  Discipline,  v.  hat  liave  all  your  accusations  of  another 
sort,  to  do  with  your  jusfitication  in  this  matter?  Was  1  to  blame  because 
you  were  dissatisfied  with  the  Constitution  and  Discipline  of  the'Church? 
Besides,  you  well  know,  that  from  the  time  you  began  to  form  a  party  in 
the  Church,  till  your  expulsion,  you  were  a  minority  of  the  members; 
and  your  revolutionary  proceedings  were  no  less  offensive  to  the  majority 
tiian  to  the  ministry.  Why  should  it  be  accounted  despotic  in  the  ministry 
to  uphold  the  institutions  of  the  Churcli  along  with  the  majority  of  its  mem- 
bivs,  i\gnin^{  a  minority   j>kt1(ing  to  ovcrturi;  those  institutions.  »nd  nmapv 


•all  poucr  to  themselves  over  tin.'  majority  ami  the  miiii.slr\ .  alike'  JJ\jt  it'  1 
MU-s  the  tyrant  who  drove  }ou  from  the  Church,  it  is  a  most  sii)o;iilar  fart, 
(and  strange  enough  as  one  for  your  justification.)  that  vou  had  got  rid  ol" 
my  tyraimy  some  .six  months  before  it  perJormed  its  office  upon  \ou. 

You  seem,  however,  to  dissent  from  this,  and  say,  I  was  present  "i«  the 
//?/n(/,v"  of  my  successors,  and  corresponded  with  them  to  inHuence  their 
proceedings.  You  even  account  for  my  doing  so,  by  attributing  to  me  the 
vile  motive  of  smoothing  the  way  for  my  return  next  year.  And  do  vou 
think  to  impose  successfully  on  the  public  thr  yotir  jtistifical'um.  whatever  a 
morbid  lUncy  (I  hope  it  may  not  be  a  malicious  spirit)  may  coKJinc  up  for 
my  dishonor f  In  seeking  your  justi'ication //»/.<  gentlemen;  you  do  your- 
selves a  greater  wrong,  liian  all  [lossible  t'alse  judgments  of  men  could  do 
you.  You  make  yourselves  \)o\\\  unch(trital)lr  Mn[  inijust.  1st.  Vou  make 
\ouTSc\\Q9.  uncharitable.  For  whatil'thc  Preachers  liave  said  I  approved 
of  their  course  towards  you,  could  you  not  account  for  it  on  some  other 
ground  than  what  insinuates  incompetence  in  them  and  officiousness  in  me.' 
Had  they  not  evidence  enough  of  what'  I  must  approve,  in  the  acts  of 
my  administration  last  year?  fiave  you  so  soon  forgotten  who  your 
tyrant  was?  But  what  if  I  was  consulted  on.  and  advised,  every  step  that 
was  taken  towards  your  expulsion,  might  it  not  have  been  accounted  for  in 
one  who  has  shared  so  much  of  weal  and  woo  as  have  fallen  to  my  lot  in 
Charleston,  without  imputing  to  me  the  vile  motive  which  you  im])ute  to 
me?  It  was  all  conjecture  with  you,  but  in  each  case  you  settled  on  that 
which  was  the  worst  possible  one.  No,  gentlemen,  you  wrong  us  all  round. 
My  successors  in  Charleston  have  not  needed,  have  not  asked,  and  have 
not  received,  aiiy  coun.sel,  advice,  or  assi-stancc  from  me,  touching  their 
exercise  of  the  Discipline,  in,  or  towards  your  expuli^ion.  They  Mere  fully 
competent  to  their  duty,  and  have  done  it.  But  I  confess  to  you,  that  what 
they  have  done  is  much  to  my  satisfaction,  seeing  that  after  all  forbearance 
towards  you  and  much  pains  for  your  correction,  you  would  allow  of  no 
better  alternative  but  that  either  you  and  your  adherents  must  alone  he  ''the 
Church"  and  hold  the  property,  and  control  the  Discipline  of  the  Church,  or 
the  Church  expel  you  from  her  commuiiion. 

And  2ndly,  your  reasons  are  no  less  iinjiist,  than  they  are  uncharitable. 
Upon  a  mere  conjecture  of  my  having  exercised  some  undue  influence 
to  your  disadvantage,  since  my  being  stationed  in  Savamiah,  (a  conjcctun^ 
in  which,  to  say  the  least,  you  were  as  likely  to  be  wrong  as  right,  and 
positix-ehjwere  wrong.)  you  have  sent  abroad  a  most  injurious  publication 
against  me;  one,  than  which,  I  doubt  if  ever  the  sun  shone  on  another  more 
libelous,  or  farther  from  fair  dealing  between  man  and  man.  And  was  this 
al.so  required  (or  your  just >Jicaii.07il  By  no  means.  It  goes  thus  far,  and  no 
farther,  that  way,  viz:  That  six  months,  or  more,  ago,  when  you  were 
Methodists,  main  men  for  the  Church,  calling  yourselves  "//»e  Church,"  ike. 
vou  had  certain  knowledge,  'irrefragable  evidence,"  that  I,  who  was  then 
vour  I'astor,  was  a  vicious  man,  and  utterly  unworthy  of  my  sacred  of. 
iice;  (ju.st  as  bad,  sujtpose.  as  you  represent  me  to  be  in  your  Pami)hlet;) 
but  although  the  Co.ifri-er.ee  was  sitting  at  your  doors,  with  full  powers 
over  \iir,  and  your  way  was  open  to  it,  and  you  knew  my  name  Mould  be 
called  in  the  regular  course  of  our  aimual  examinations,  and  the  question 
be  asked  m hcther  there  Mas  any  objection  to  n)e  as  a  Methodist  Preacher, 
vou  stood  aloof,  and  objected  not  at  all.     But  now  that  your  passions  have 


liet'ii  St i vied  by  youv  expulsion  tVoin  the  Church,  and  you  coijjccture  that  I 
approved  oi'  your  expulsion,  or  advised  it,  or  in  some  way  shot  an  evil  eye 
at  you  through  the  wide  woods  between  us,  you  are  eager  to  fix  on  me  the 
brand  of  inlamy,  burning  broad  and  deep.  And  is  this  the  justification 
which  you  seek  gentlemen?  Were  you  willingto  let  the  wolf  go  to  destroy 
the  sheep  of  other  folds,  when  you  kncAV  him  to  be  a  wolf  and  had  your- 
selves felt  his  fangs,  provided  he  would  not  disturb  your  particular  plans  in 
the  church  in  Charleston?  Or,  are  you  prepared  to  confess  that  jou  have 
grown  so  selfish  as  to  have  lost  any  respect  you  ever  have  had  for  the  ninth 
commandment?     Which  would  you? 

It  would  seem  as  sad  for  you  that  you  did  not  accuse  me  to  the  Aimual 
Conference,  as  perhaps,  you  might  wish  it  could  be  for  me.  It  was,  un- 
ipiestionabiy,  the  easiest,  and  most  ready  and  efiectnal  way  you  could  have 
taken,  to  get  yourselves  justified,  if  an  exposure  ofany  «f/Mrt/  sins  of  mine 
might  justify  you.  And  besides  this  paramount  consideration  of  your  being 
justified  by  the  public,  you  might,  by  my  impeachment  and  conviction,  have 
claimed  for  yourselves  the  merit  of  souie  consistency  of  conduct,  have  shewn 
a  becoming  respect  for  your  duty  as  members  of  the  church,  and  possibly, 
proved  yourselves  christian  men  who  resist  sin  not  to  gratity  a  personal  re- 
sentment or  some  selfish  end,  but  for  the  fear  of  God  and  the  love  of  virtue. 
Besides,  gentlemen,  consider  how  infallibly  certain  you  must  have  been  of 
complete  success.  There  was  your  ''■irrefragable  cvidrnce^'  to  confound 
me,  and  3"ou  know  that  nature  has  not  blessed  me  witii  the  firmest  nerves. 
Supposing  then  Uidy  that  I  was  conscious  of  my  guilt,  aiul  arraigned  before 
the  Conference  as  vou  might  have  arraigned  me,  my  failing  heart  must 
have  quickly  told  through  all  my  outer  niiit\  how  vile  I  was.  Think  gen- 
tlemen of  one,  who  has  a  heart  in  him,  who  has  passed  his  whole  time 
from  before  nineteen  years  of  age  to  forty-four  as  a  preacher  of  the  Gos- 
pel— who  has  two  sons  and  five  daughters  for  whom  he  has  gathered  no 
portion  in  (his  world,  except,  perhaps,  the  kind  respects  that  follow  a  pious 
name; — think  of  such  a  one  arraigned  before  his  brethren  in  Conference, 
between  whom  and  himself  nothing  ever  existed  contrary  to  the  sympa- 
thies of  a  holy  calling,  but  now  guilty  of  what  you  charge,  feeling  hisguih, 
and  conscious  of  your  ability  to  make  it  manifest.  As  you  should  state 
your  charges  and  adduce  your  proofs,  he  would  grow  pale,  his  lips  quiver, 
his  whole  body  become  agitated;  attempting  to  answer,  he  Mould  not  be 
able,  voice  and  recollection  should  fail  him,  his  eyes  sink  in  their  sockets, 
his  guilt  be  proclaimed,  and  he  confounded,  condemned,  undone.  Here 
might  incfeed  be  something  towards  your  justification.  And  I  put  it  to  you, 
if  you  could  have  looked  for  such  a  result  of  your  impeachment,  woidd  you, 
could  you,  for  your  regard  for  my  usefulness,  or  any  other  cause,  have  spared 
me  the  triall  Yea  or  Nay.  Make  your  answer  but  consistent  with  your 
pamphlet  and  your  professions  as  men  fearing  God,  and  I  am  content. — 
\ou  cannot.  What  is  it  then  gentlemen/  Under  a  pretext  of  justifying 
yourselves,  have  you  wilfully  published  scandal?  And  if  not,  had  you  nev- 
er a  conscience  till  after  you  were  expelled  from  the  Methodist  Church? — 
What  gentlemen  might  you  not  do  if  your  own  justification  required  itl — 
But  ought  you  to  seek  your  justification  hy  every  means'] 

I  said  that  I  felt  peculiar  interest  in  the  inquiry  why  you  did  not  impeach 
me  to  the  Annual  Conference.  The  reason  why,  is  plain.  Of  several 
facts  whicli  you  hare  gro.sslv  misstated,  there  are   no   witnesses    betweea 


US  but  ot'\oursuiv«s,  and  you  arc  scvrnil.  or  many  persons  allinniiur  oue 
•way,  M hile  I  am  alone  in  contradicting  yon.  Indeed  you  all  are  but  one 
in  the  idei:tiiy  ol  your  cause,  though  your  persons  are  several,  aiid  voii 
seem  lo  alVirm  each  a.s  ot'  his  own  knowledge.  Now  such  being  the  state 
of  the  case  it  would  have  made  much  tor  the  truth,  to  have  confronted  the 
parties  before  competent  triers,  wiio  might  have  sifted  each  one  to  the  l)ot- 
tom  of  his  stoiy.  And  of  this  fair  mode  of  investigating  the  truth  of  vour 
charges,  you  say  yo\i  once  intended  it.  and  even  talked  about  if.  but  de- 
clined putting  it  in  practice  for  fear  of  injuring  my  usefulness.  Then  gen- 
men,  I  have  to  tiiank  you  oiily  for  so  much  talk  and  fair  intention;  but  as  for 
M  hat  you  actually  have  done,  tjiat  is  (piitc  another  matter,  and  looks  more 
like  a  conspiracy  against  the  inn<»eent,  than  an  honest  aj)peal  against  an 
evil-doer. 

Let  us  review  the  whole  groinid  otthe  case. 

1st.  I  was  a  member  of  the  South  Carolina  Conference  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  and  stationed  in  Charleston,  during  the  Conference 
year  of  1833-4.  And  you,  (except  Major  'Laval,)  were  all  that  time  official 
members  of  the  Church,  whereof  I  was  the  Preacher  in  Charge,  or  Pastor. 
(That  is  to  say,  you  Mr.  Kingman  was  a  Class-leader,  IVIr.  Kirkwood  a 
Class-leader  and  Steward,  Mr.  Mood  a  Class-leader,  Mr.  Hilliard  a  Class- 
leader,  Mr.  Beckman  a  Class-leader,  Mr.  Godfrey  a  Class-leader,  and  Mr. 
Honour  a  Class-leader  and  Exhorter.) 

2nd.  During  this  time  30U  say  I  was  guilty  of  the  most  flagitious  offen- 
ces, domineering  over  the  Church,  violating  and  despising  the  rights  of 
the  members,  and  uttering  divers  falshoods  most  sacrilegiously  and  at  differ- 
ent times. 

3rd.  But  during  all  the  same  time,  (and  until  now  that  I  first  see  myself 
so  accused)  neither  did  you,  or  either  of  you,  or  any  other  person  on  your 
account,  or  on  any  account,  directly  or  indirectly,  give  me  to  imderstand 
that  I  was  held  thus  guilty;  nor  did  you  make  any  complaint  to  the*  Presi- 
ding  Elder,  or  the  Bishop,  in  the  interval  of  the  Annual  (Conference,  or  to 
the  Annual  Conference  at  its  session. 

4th.  At  the  Conference  (held  in  Charleston  in  February  last,)   my  term 

*  The  following  are  tbc  provisions  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  for  such  cases.  See  Sec- 
lions  V.  and  XVIII,  of  Chap.   1. 

"What  are  the  duties  of  a  Presiding  Elder? 

*  *  *  *  In  the  absence  of  the  Bishop,  to  take  charge  of  all  the  Elders  and  Deacons, 
travelling  and  local  Preachers,  and  Fxliortcrs.  in  his  District.  To  change,  receive,  and 
suxperul  Preachers  in  i)is  District  during  the  intervals  of  the  Conferences,  and  in  the  ab- 
sence of  the  Bishop,  as  the  Discipline  directs."      Pas^e  28,  ed.  1832. 

"What  shall  be  done  when  an  I^lder,  Deacon,  or  Preacher,  is  under  report  of  being 
"uiltv  of  some  crime  expressly  forbidden  in  the  word  of  (iod,  &c.-  Jlns.  Let  the  Pre- 
siding Elder,  in  the  absence  of  a  Bishop,  call  as  many  travelling  ministers  as  he  shall 
think  fit,  at  least  three;  and  if  possible,  bring  the  accused  and  the  accuser  face  to  face. — 
If  the  person  be  clearly  convicted,  he  shall  be  suspended  from  all  official  services  in  the 
Church  till  the  ensuing  annual  Conference;  at  which  his  case  shall  be  fully  considered 
and  determined." 

Ques.  "What  shall  be  done  in  ca.ses  of  improper  tempei-s.  words  or  actions?" — 
Jlns.  The  person  so  offending  snail  be  reprehended  by  his  senior  in  ollice.  Should  a  se- 
cond transgression  take  place,  one,  two,  or  three  Ministers  or  Preachers  are  to  be  taken 
as  witnesses.  If  he  be  not  cured,  he  shall  be  tried  at  the  next  Annual  Conference,  and 
if  found  guilty  and  impenitent,  shall  be  expelled  from  the  connexion,  and  his  name  so 
returned  in  the  minutes  of  the  Conference."     Chap.  I.  Sec.  XVIII    p.  63,  64,  ed.  1832, 


9 

of  service  in  that  city  expired,  by  the  Discipline.  la  anticipation  of  tiiat 
event,  I  attended  the  session  of  the  Georgia  Coiifercnce,  (a  month  previous- 
ly,) for  the  avowed  purpose  of  soliciting  of  the  Bishop  the  appointment  of  a 
member  of  that  Conference  (Mr.  Pierce)  to  Charleston!,  for  the  present  year. 
And  to  propose  (as  I  did  propose,  and  it  was  done)  that  if  Mr.  Pierce  could 
not  be  spared  from  Georgia  withoiit  a  substitute,  I  would  become  that  substi- 
tute at  the  expiration  of  my  time  in  Charleston.  At  the  close,  therefore,  of 
the  Session  of  the  South  Carolina  Conference.  Mr.  Pierce  was  stationed  in 
Charleston;  and  myself  in  Savannah. 

5th.  Some  six  months  after  1  was  transferred,  as  above,  to  the  Georgia 
Conference,  my  successors  in  Charleston  were  under  the  paiiiful  necessity 
of  expelling  you  from  the  Church;  you  prevailed  on  a  considerable  number 
to  leave  her  communion,  and  go  with  J  ou;  and  then  came,  what  you  sav 
your  justification  required.  You  chose  to  make  the  acts  of  a  former  year, 
the  burthen  of  your  complaint  why  you  were  expelled,  or  withdrew  from 
the  Church,  the  present  y.^ar;  and  "looked  through  the  vista  of  120  miles" 
from  Charleston,  through  the  swamps,  iu  the  month  of  August,  for  your  op- 
ponent, when  in  all  reason  you  should  have  rem;ii:ied  at  home.  But  you 
could  raise  a  fog  in  the  distance;  I  had  attended  the  Georgia  Conference; 
the  newspapers  had  said  i  was  to  be  stationed  in  Savannah — Bishop  Emorv 
said  (what  every  Methodist  boy  knows)  "that  the  I3r.  was  amenable  to  tlie 
South  Carolina  Conference  till  discharged  from  it" — and  insinuations  are 
made,  to  the  effect,  that  I  had  eluded  your  justice  by  tripping  off  to  Georgia. 
Thus,  gentlemen,  have  you  compelled  me  to  expose,  what  I  shall  be  much 
mistaken  if  the  public  do  not  consider,  rather  a  conspiracy  against  my  char- 
acter, than  a  justification  of  your  conduct. 


I  will  despatch  the  contents  of  your  Pamphlet,  gentlemen,  as  brieily  and 
much  to  your  satisfaction,  as  1  am  able.  That  is  to  say,  so  much  of  its 
contents  as  I  am  personally  concerned  with. 

Pe'rhaps  I  ought  to  begin  by  thanking  you  for  not  having  made  mc  out 
an  abolitionist.  You  seem  hov.ever  to  have  strongly  squinted  that  way. 
and  probably  your  just?Jieaiio?i  rcqitircd  no  more.  You  present  the  case  of 
colored  persons  sitting  amo:ig  (he  whites  unfairly,  as  if  to  shew  that  the 
evil  which  had  given  much  dissatisfaction,  and  for  the  correction  of  Avhich 
I  advised  the  putting  oftbnders  out  of  the  Church,  was  afterwards  upheld 
by  me.  Not  so;  nor  was  the  colored  man  who  was  put  out  of  the  Church 
sitting  among  the  whites,  but  on  a  bench  in  the  aisle  against  the  Avail  next 
to  the  front  gallery,  where  coloi\'d  persons  had  been  permitted  to  sit.  For 
4\\G  true  state  of  this  case,  and  the  correction  of  the  contents,  generally,  of 
the  first  five' and  a  half  pages  of  your  pamphlet,  I  need  only  refer  to  the 
exposition  Avhich  I  addressed  to  the  members  of  the  Church  on  the  28th 
of  November  last;  (which  follows  this  article;)  and  particularly  the  corres- 
pondence between  Messrs.  Poyas,  Honour,  and  Mood,  a  Committee  of  the 
Quarterly  Conference,  and  myself. 

A  few  prefatory  remarks,  only,  T  wiil  make,  in  this  place. 

1st.     IMie  exposition  now  mentioned,  was  printed  and  distributed  among 

the  members  of  the  Church,  but  not  published,  at  the  date    above    given. — 

None  of  its  statements  were  contradicted  at  that  time,    nor  subsequently,  to 

mv  knowledge;  on  the  contrarv,  I  understood  from  various  quarters,  up  to 

2 


10 

UK  i:i;.' 'u  ijiy  leaviog  Clinrleston.  that  you  all  admitted  it  to  bo   a   i'uitht'ui 
account  of  the  trausactions  therein  set  forlii. 

2nd.  \ou  will  perceive  that  tenacious  of  power,  and  tiie  dignity  of  being 
Chairman  ex  officio  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  as  you  reprc-ent  me  to  have 
bjcn,  two  of  yourselves,  and  they  certainly  not  as  mighty  as  "a  Russian  Au- 
tocrat or  the  Cham  of  Tartary,"  could  turn  me  out  of  office,  and  oblige  the 
'I'nistces  to  give  them  up  the*  keys  of  the  Church  to  do  their  pleasure, 
against  both  7ny  jr///  and  the  trill  of  the  Trustees  in  the  matter. 

'M\\.  You  will  farther  perceive  that  these  redoubtable  committee  men. 
alter  they  had  humbled  the  domineering  Preacher,  and  refractory  Trustees, 
and  got  the  power  into  their  own  hands  to  do  as  to  them  might  seem  good 
in  the  premises,  did  do  nothing  at  all.  No  ho.'Aj/»^,  neither  fur  their  zeal 
to  have  the  Quarterly  Conference  obeyed,  or  in  honor  to  the  majesty  of 
the  members,  or  for  the  sake  of  the  crying  evil  of  the  intnisions  of  colored 
people  in  the  Churches.  BiU  the  moment  we  gave  way  (o  them,  they 
wholly  relinquished  their  object,  and  said  not  another  Avord  about  the  scats 
in  the  Churches,  or  the  necessity  of  obedience  to  the  Quarterly  Conference, 
or  to  the  members;  thus  demonstrating  that  they  liad  only  been  acting  a 
part,  and  using  their  appointinent  as  a  Committee  of  the  Quarterly  Coufe- 
rcuce,  to  agitate  the  Cluirch  towards  some  other  aim.  What  that  aim  was. 
we  then  were  wholly  igiorant;  but  events  shortly  afterwards  transpired  to 
disclose  it. 

What  you  say,  on  page  0,  about  a  meeting  of  the  male  members,  at 
which  I  was  present  and  spoke,  misrepresents  the  facts.  It  was  not  "a  viect- 
ing  of  the  male  members  of  the  Church,"  nor  was  it  ever  '■^called"  at  an\ 
mcethig  of  the  Chur(?h,  society  meeting,  or  meeting  for  public  worship,  or 
in  any  open  way  that  might  have  made  it  known  to  the  members  general- 
Iv,  or  even  to  the  Ministry  of  the  Church.  Hut  it  was  a  caucus  of  your 
■party,  called  among  yourscli-es  for  party  jmrposcs,  vaul  Mas  the  Hrst  of  pro- 
l)ably  several  such  meetings,  held  by  you,  that  came  to  my  knowledge. — 
How  I  came  to  be  there,  and  spoke,  I  will  explain.  Sometime  on  Monday 
the  29th  October,  I  was  told  by  an  old  and  respectable  member  of  -the 
Church,  that  he  had  reasoi)  to  apprehend  the  young  men's  prayer  meeting 
at  Trinity  School-room  on  Tuesday  evenings,  had  been  turned  into  a  sort  of 

*  It  is  a  pity  that  those  who  seek  so  liard  to  justify  themselves,  should  make  matter 
for  fresh  ohjcclions;  perhaps  it  is  a  pity  to  ohject  to  them;  but  justice  obhges  us  to  notice 
a  particular!}  glaring  impropriety  in  giving/mri  for  the  whole,  of  the  resolutions  of  the 
liourd  of 'I'rustees,  at  page  5  of  \oiir  pamphlet.  Tliere  were  three  resolutions  passed  by 
the  Board,  and  certified  to  you,  of  which  you  have  given  the  first  and  second  only,  which 
were  little  more  than  introductory  to  the  third,  and  principle  one,  which  was  as  follows, 
\iz:  *        0 

"Resolved,  that  the  Trustees,  in  order  to  promote  the  peace  of  tiic  Church,  and  pre- 
vent any  collision  or  misunderstanding  with  the  Connnittee  of  the  Quarterly  Conference, 
will  not  put  any  obstacle  in  their  way,  should  they  think  proper  to  have  the  alterations 
made;  and  that  they  be  notified  where  the  keys  of  the  ditlerenl  Churches  may  be  had  in 
order  to  give  them  ready  access." 

Tiie  omission  of  this  resolution  in  your  pampiilet,  was  grossly  unjust  to  the  Trustees, 
and  as  such,  higlily  reprehensible,  however  much  the  justitication  of  tlie  Committtee  who 
are  of  yourselves,  required  it.  This  Committee  had  taken  great  pains,  b\  several  hands, 
to  gel  a  paper  numerously  signed  to  authorise  them  to  carry  the  plan  proposed  by  the  Q. 
Conference  into  immediate  elfect  if  (he  Trustees  sliould  fail  to  do  so.  'I'hey  scandalize 
both  the  Preacher  and  the  Tiu'^tees.  without  mercy,  for  their  alledged  insubordination, 
txit  lo.  themselves: 


caucus-meeting,  where  certain  revolutionary  measures  were  a«it;ilcJ.  J 
replied  that  if  it  was  so  it  must  be  kjiown  to  Mr.  Po} ;  s,  theloca!  Preacher, 
and  I  would  immediately  see  him  and  satisfy  myself  of  the  faci!«.  Mr.  P. 
told  me  there  had  beeu  meetings,  but  they  meant  \vell  in  holding  them, 
and  they  did  propose  some  changes,  but  he  considered  they  were  such  as 
would  ])rove  beneficial.  He  v.as  sure  nothing  was  intended  against  the 
Discipline.  After  stating  to  me  what  was  contemplated  to  be  done,  and 
hearing  my  answer,  he  professed  to  be  convinced  that  the  measures  pro- 
posed, (about  the  same  which  they  afterwards  adopted  in  Trinity  Church) 
were  inconsistent  with  the  Discipline,  and  ought  not  to  be  ivrosccutcd.  lie 
told  me  they  were  to  have  a  meeting  the  next  evening  (Oct.  20,)  at  'l'rinit\' 
School-room,  and  suggested  (yea,  he  solicited  it)  that  I  should  attend,  and 
explain  the  subject  to  the  brethren  at  that  meeting  as  I  had  explained  it  to 
him,  adding  that  he  doubted  not,  I  would  convince  them  they  More  wrong. 
I  felt  it  my  duty  to  do  so,  attended,  and  spoke  at  large  to  shew  that  the 
excitement  was  unnecessary,  and  that  such  measures  as  I  had  learned  from 
Mr.  Poyas  (who  was  present  also)  they  contemptatcd.  were  contvar\-  to 
the  Discipline  of  the  Church. 

The  meeting  had  been  opened  some  time  before  I  got  there,  and  I  re- 
mained  no  longer  than  for  the  above  purpose,  and  to  give  any  explanations 
which  might  be  asked  by  individuals;  but  withdrew  and  left  them,  befoi-c 
their  adjournment. 

Concerning  the  wonderful  aftair  of  the  reading  of  the  paper  in  the  meet- 
ing in  Trinity  Church  on  the  evening  of  Nov.  1"2,  permit  me  to  say,  1st. 
That  neither  could  you,  or  any  one  present,  have  understood  me  atfhe  time, 
as  j'our  memories  now  servo  you  to  state  the  matter,  or  either  by  you,  or 
by  some  one  not  less  careful  for  the  purity  of  religion,  I  must  have  been  re- 
buked, then  or  shortly  afterwards.  Nay,  I  must  have  been  punished  for 
my  baseness.  My  Presiding  Elder,  was  present,  and  the  Rev.  Messrs. 
Joseph  Holmes,  Roddick  Pierce,  Hugh  A.  C.  Walker,  John  Mood,  and 
VVhitcfoord  Smith,  besides  not  a  fcAV  of  the  oldest  and  most  godly  members 
of  the  Church;  and  yet  I  positively  affirm  it  never  occurred  to  me,  then  or 
afterwards,  to  make  any  excuse  or  apology  to  either  of  them  for  any  thing 
I  said  or  did  at  the  meeting,  nor  has  either  of  them,  to  this  day,  found  any 
cause  to  object  to  me. 

2iid.  You  are  wholly  wrong  in  your  statement  of  the  matter,  and  as  I  am 
unwilling  to  charge  30U  with  a  malicious  fabrication,  I  must  conclude  that 
a  bit  from  the  n)emory  of  one,  and  a  bit  from  another,  has  been  depended  on 
to  make  up  a  whole  statement,  without  sufficient  scrutiny  among  your- 
selves.  Your  precision  itself,  is  too  precise  to  have  been  arrived  at,  at  this 
late  day,  without  considerable  trouble.  You  must  have  hunted  up  the  par- 
ticulars in  a  feverish  heat,  and  accepted  of  their  accuracy  without  due  re- 
flection. 

To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  the  paper  which  you  say  I  read  was  not 
the  one  I  did  read;  nor  did  I  read  the  paper  which  was  read,  after  the  man- 
ner related  bv  you.  I  had  two  papers  of  the  Committee,  one  the  resolu- 
tion adopted  by  the  Corporation  party  at  their  meeting  in  the  School  room 
on  the  29th  October,  and  the  other  a  note  from  the  Committee  to  myself. 
The  one  being  a  sort  of  official  document  of  your  party,  then  just  beginning 
to  shew  itself  as  a  party,  I  was  induced  to  put  among  my  papers,  the  other, 
to  my  great  regret,  I  did  not  consider  of  any  future   consequence,  and  did 


hoi  preserve.     Ami  tins  paper  it  was  whicli  I  did  read,  and  iiol   tiie  otbcr 
wliicli  you  atHriu  1  read.     But  wliy  was  any  paper   read   at  all?     Plainly 
as  evidence  on  the  question,  whether,  or  not,   that   meetinj;  in   wliich    we 
■were  then  assembled,  was  a  corporate  meeting.     The  Presiding  Elder  was 
denied  the  right  of  the  chair  on  th'j  ground  (hat  tin;  meeting  was    a    meet- 
ing of  the  t^hurch  in  a  corporate  capacily;  I  resisted  this,  in  favor  of  his 
ri"ht  to  the  chair,  by  maintaining  that  it  was    not  a    corporate   meeting;   I 
■would  not  have  called  a  (.'orporate  meeting,  and  had  not  called  such  a    one, 
but  simply  a  meeting  ol'thc  male  m-nibers  of  age    of  the   Church.      I  was 
asked  if  I  had  not  boen  required  to  call  a  corporate   meeting,    and   did    not 
know  that  only  such  a  meeting  was  d^'siied  by  those  who  recjuestcd  the  call.' 
1  knew,  and  never  disputed  itiut  the  party  wanted  a  corporate  meeting  cal- 
led, but  1  was  under  no  obligation  to  call  such  a  meeting,  against    my   own 
conviction  of  what  was  proper,  and  the  wishes  of  a  mnjority  ofthe  Church, 
though  desired  by  a  party  among  us.     But  I  also    aflirmed    that  even    the 
application  for  the  call  of  a  meeting  was   ;]ot  so   expressed    as  to    require 
that  the  meeting  then  present  shoubi  bo  called  as  a  corporate  meeting;  and 
I  referred  accordingly,  to  the  terms  in  which  I  had    been  requested  by  the 
Commiitce  to  call  a  meeting,  and  certainly  not  to  those  terms  in  Which  the 
■party  meeting  had  expressed  its  resolution  to  raise  a  committee,   d:c.   and 
in  which  not  o!ic  word  was  addressed  to  me,  but  the  whole  subject  confided 
to  the  Committee.     The  Committee's  application  to' me,  theretbre,  and  not 
the  resolution  ofthe  party,  was  clearly  what  I  had  to  do  with,   .ind  what   I 
read  from.   But  whatever  paper  it  wan,  did  I  read  it  after  the  manner  affirm- 
ed by  you?     Not  at  all.     According  to  your  representation,  I  read  it  to  the 
end,  skipping  the  words,  Hn  its  corporate  capacity;^'  and  then  affirmed   that 
no  such  words  were  in  the  paper.     This  representation   is    evidently    con- 
trived to  suit  the  form  of  the  paper  which    you  say   was   read  by   me,    but 
which  I  did  not  read.     The  note  of  the  Connnittce  which  I  (/?rf   read,    was 
formed  of  two  paragraphic  sentences;  the  first  requesting  me  to  call  a  meet- 
ing of  the  male  members  of  the  Church,  and  the  second  accounting  ibr  that 
request  by  referring  to  the  resolution  ofthe  party  meeting  ofthe   29th   Oc- 
tober.     The  request  to  call,  and  the  reasons  for  the  request,   I   considered 
different,  in  the  nature  ofthe  things,  and  they  were  separately  expressed,  in 
distinct  paragraphs.     Tlu'  request  to  call   a    meeting,   was  the    matter  in 
hand,  and  not  the  occasion  which  hud  given  rise  to  that   request.     I    read 
therefore,  the  paragraph  in  which  tlie  request  was  expressed,  and    not    the 
other  one  also,    which  I  considered    irrelevant  to    the  question.     Having 
done  so,  and  perceiving  an  expression  of  doubt,  or  surprise,  on  several  coun- 
tenances,  I  repeated  the  reading,  as  before,  and  added  some   such   words 
as  you  have  said,  that 'I  read  honestly,  and  if  any  one  wished  he  might  read 
for  himself.'     I  saw  no  one  move  as  if  coming  to  do  so,  but  one  (I  think    a 
member  ofthe  Committee)  said  aloud  'Read  it  all,'  or  'read  it  to  the  end.' — ' 
1  then  read  both  paragra|)hs  ofthe  note,  and  maintained  the  same  position  as 
before,  which  was,  that  the  committee    had  'not  required   me   to    call   that 
meeting  as  a  corporate  meeting.     As  for  what  vou  say  of  the  silence  and 
astonishment  which  followed  a  detection  of  my  falsehood,  gentlemen,  it   is 
only  a  rhetorical  flourish,  not  founded  on  fact,  but,,  perhaps  -'required  for 
your  justification  "       y 

Previously  to  calling  this  meeting  I  had  been  judiciously  advised  against 
"Hi  by  one  of  the  most  intelligent  and  worthy  members  of  the  Church,  on  the 


l.i 

ground  that  a  party  was  organized  and  drilled  tor  attendance  there,  and 
who,  though  not  comprising  more  than  a  third  part  of  the  male  members  of 
the  Church,  yet  being  ail  certain  to  attend,  and  the  members  generally  not 
apprehensive  of  the  evil,  and  therefore  not  so  likely  to  be  present,  the  party 
might  abuse  the  meeting  to  injurious  ends.  In  consultation  with  the  Presi- 
ding Elder,  however,  we  thought  it  not  charitable  to  act  on  this  apprehen- 
sion; for  the  reason,  tliat,  whatever  occasion  had  been  given  us  for  uneasi- 
ness, we  had  no  proofs  of  an  intention  to  disturb  the  economy  or  organi- 
zation of  the  Church,  except  as  we  might  infer  it  from  party  meetings 
which  had  been  held,  and  their  transactions  kept  secret.  A  meeting  of  the 
male  members  as  a  corporation  we  were  decided  liot  to  en  11,  on  purely  le- 
gal grounds.  1st.  wc  were  advised  of  its  being  doubtful  whether  the 
(Jhurch  was  a  corporation  at  all;  and,  2nd,  still  more  doubtful,  wheth- 
er, if  a  corporatior.,  its  corporate  capacity  vested  in  the  male  members  gen- 
erally. We  concluded  however,  it  might  be  best  to  call  a  meeting  of  the 
male  members,  simply  as  such,  Avithout  respect  to  corporation  in  any  wise, 
and  in  this  meeting  to  state  fully  what  we  had  learned  on  this  question,  and 
if  alter  all,  the  meeting  should  decide  on  calhng  the  Corporation,  Avell;  but 
we  hoped  it  would  rather  be  content  to  adopt  some  satisliictory  measure  for 
settling  thy  questions  about  the  corporation,  before  any*  assumption  of  cor- 
porate powers.  And  it  was  with  these  views  that  the  meeting  of  the  male 
members  of  the  Church  generally  was  called,  of  which  i  have  here  been  re- 
marking. For  i'urther  particulars,  and  especially  the  proceedings  of  the 
party  meeting  which  was  held  after  the  disjuission  of  the  meeting  of  the 
Church,  see  the  exposition,  by  myself,  in  November  last. 

HoM-  can  you  pretend,  gentlemen,  that  your  election  of  the  Trustees  of 
the  Church,  to  act  as  your  trustees,  was  done  with  a  desire  to  continue 
tJiem  in  office.'  It  might  indeed  have  been  an  artifice  to  gain  you  credit, 
and  get  you  well  rid  of  them;  but  nothing  could  be  more  unreasonable, 
than  to  suppose  they  would  give  up  their  offices  under  the  Discipline,  and 
put  themselves  in  your  power,  when  you  Mere  doing  all  you  could  to  their 
discredit?  But  because  you  electe.l  the  men  3'ou  abused,  and  recognized 
the  Book  of  Discipline  as  the  rule  and  governing  principle  in  all  cases  not 
particularly  defined  in  your  by-Joii's,^^  you  have  the  conscience  to  appeal  to 
an  enlightened  and  imprejudiccd  public,  "what  more  men  could  2}ossibly 
have  done  to  evidence  that  they  were  not  actuated  by  any  sinister  7notive!" 
After  all  your  caucus  meetings,  there  you  were  making  by-laws  to  limit 
the  Book  of  Discipline  of  the  Church;  and  for  whom?  For  yourselves 
alone?  No  indeed,  but  for  the  whole  Church,  in  which  you  were  but  of 
yesterday,  and  numbered  not  more  than  as  onef  to  three  of  the  male  mem- 

*  If  it  be  asked,  why  I  called  a  meeting  of  the  Corporation  some  six  or  seven  years 
ago,  if  its  existence  was  so  doubtful?  l\ly  answer  is,  1  am  not  a  Lawyer,  and  was  not 
informed  on  a  legal  question  till  I  got  legal  advice. 

t  From  this  meeting,  where  such  high  functions  were  assumed,  (please  see  the  pro- 
ceedings in  the  exposition  to  the  Church)  there  was  sent  me  an  authenticated  copy  of 
the  proceedings,  in  which  was  a  list  of  all  the  persons  prc-icnt  at  the  meeting.  The 
whole  number  thus  authentically  furnished,  was  under  fifty  persons;  and  in  this  number, 
they  included  several  (five  or  six)  who  disclaimed  (both  then  and  ever  since)  any  con- 
nexion with  thorn,  hut  who  stopped  out  of  curiosity  to  Uhow  what  the  schismatics  intend- 
ed to  do.  .\t  that  time  there  were  one  hundred  and  forty-five  male  members  belonging 
to  the  Church.  And  yet  this  most  aristocratic  party  were  only  contending  for  "inalien- 
able rights!"     The  list  of  names,  and  all  documents  used  or  referred  to  in  this  publicit- 


14 

bers,  cxcliidiii^  lliu  iiaiii.>lr\ .  ami  not  havin;f  one  elderly  man,  uv  iiioie  ihaii 
one  of  a  moderately  long  standing  in  the  Clnirch,  of  your  party!  Yes, 
there  you  were  who  had  never,  all  of  you  together,  contributed  one  dollar 
of  the*  purchase  money  of  the  i)rop;n4y  of  llie  Church,  taking  it  wholly 
into  your  own  possession,  out  of  the  hands  of  the  long  tried,  faithful  and 
godly  men  to  whose  management  the  Church  had  coulided  it,  and  wished 
it  still  to  bo  confided;  and  yet  you  appeal  to  an  enlightened  public  for  your 
disinterestedness!  Gentlemen,  I  wish  you  the  best  reputations  you  can 
possibly  deserve,  and  that  you  may  deserve  the  best. 

In  your  zeal  to  make  me  out  a  tyrant,  you  have  given  the  following  pas- 
sage,  (page  10  of  your  pamphlet.)  '-But  the  preacher  was  not  disposed  to 
remain  quiet,  and  submit  to  the  actio;)  of  the  Church;  and  why?  Because 
the  Discipline;  provides,  that  where  the  Church  is  not  incorporated,  the 
preacher  shall  a|)point  trustees,  and  in  case  of  a  vacancy  occurring,  he 
shall  have  the  power  to  nominate,  and  the  remaining  Trustees  shall  elect. 
And  the  old  Board"  (meanirsg  the  Board  of  Trustees  in  Charleston)  "had 
adopted  a  by-law,  making  him  cliairman  of  the  Board,  cx-ojjicio.  This  lit- 
tle power  he  was  unwilling  to  have  taken  from  him,  and  determined  rather 
than  do  so,  he  would  expel  every  member  of  the  Church,  who  should  be 
guilty  of  the  heinous  offence  of  doing  what  was  calculated  to  lessen  his 
power.  He  contended  that  the  Discipline  vests  all  power  in  the  hands  of 
the  preachers,  and  that  any  action  on  the  part  of  the  members,  would  sub- 
ject them  to  expulsion  for  disobedience  to  the  order  and  discipline  of  (he 
Church." 

Your  mistakes  in  -tlic  above  extract,  are  pretty  considerable.  1st.  I 
never  declined  submitting  to  any  act  of  tiik  Church;  but  when  your 
party  claimed  to  be  '"tiik  Chuuch,"  neither  would  I.  or  the  majority  of 
the  members  of  the  Church,  submit  to  the  action  of  your  i)arty  so  claim- 
ing- 

2.  There  is  no  such  provision  in  the  Book  of  Discipline,  as  you  say 
there  is,  that  '■'■where  the  Church  is  not  incorporated,  the  preacher  shall  ap- 
point Trustees. 

3.  You  know  (hat  I  so  loved  and  honored  the  power  of  being  chairman 
of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  that  long  before  the  time  of  which  you  are 
speaking,  I  had  resigned  it  of  my  own  motion,  and  greatly  to  the  mortifi- 
cation  of  some  of  you,  who  would  still  insist  that  I  must  be  in  it.  (Sec 
the  letters  in  my  exposition  to  the  Church.) 

4.  As  to  my  contending  that  tlu;  Discipline  vests  all  power  iu  the  hands 
of  the  preachers,  &c.  as  you  state  it,  you  must  have  dreamt  it.  I  never 
said  so,  or  any  thing  like  it,  for  1  could  not  without  saying  what  I  knew  to 
be  untrue. 

I  object,  in  iotu,  to  your  representation  of  the  course  pursued  towards 
you,  or  rather  seven   of  you  and  two  others,  (Major  Laval  being  then   at 

tion,  may  be  seen  by  any  one  at  the  Methodist  parsonage,  corner  of  Boundary  and  Pitt 
streetii,  Charleston — the  authors  of  the  pamphlet  excepted,  who,  of  course,  are  suffi- 
ciently well  informed. 

*  'riie  property  of  the  f^hurch,  (except  the  Churches  and  burial  grounds,  which  were 
purchased  long  before  these  persons  had  anv  connexion  with  us,  and  indeed  before  one 
often  of  them  were  born,)  has  been  derived  from  the  burial  grounds,  or  given  to  the 
Church  by  legacy.  In  the  strictest  sense  our  remark  is  just;  and  we  make  it,  to  dis- 
abuse the  public  mind,  as  to  the  pretensions  of  some  people  who  have  been  prating 
much  about  their  rights,  "inalienable  rights." 


15 

t'ohiuibiii,)  tVoui  the  date  of  your  schismatic  meeting  of  tlio  I'^th  of 
.November,  till  I  left  Charleston  for  Savannah.  And  you  com|>el  me  to 
prououiK-c  it.  geutlemori,  a  tissue  of  misrcprcsenialior.s  from  beginning 
to  end. 

The  ibllowing  is  a  true  history  of  the  Avlit;!e  matter,  to  the  best  of  my 
recollection. 

Immediately  r.ftcr  tlie  mectiiig  of  the  l'2th  November,  I  wrote  to  the  Rev. 
WiUiam  M.  Kennedy,  then  Presiding  Elder  of  the  (.'olumbia  district,  and 
Avell  known  as  one  of  the  oldest  and  most  inlluential  of  our  Ministers,  re- 
questing hiui  !o  come  to  Charleston,  and  try  if  he  could  prevail  to  heal  the 
Avounds  of  the  Church.  He  arrived  just  as  the  exposition  I  had  made  of 
the  progress  and  state  of  our  difficulties  was  pas;'ing  through  the  press. 

By  reference  to  the  proceedii;gs  of  the  schismatic  meeting  of  November 
12th,  it  will  be  perceived,  that  aUhough  they  had  adopted  a  constitution  for 
the  Church,  in  wliicli  they  took  the  right  of  electing  a  Board  of  Trustees, 
and  provided  for  the  election  of  au  Executive  Committee,  with  full  powers 
over  the  ])ropcrty  of  the  Church,  yet  as  they  had  elected  the  Church's 
Board  to  be  ihrir  Board  of  Trustees,  and  made  no  election  at  all  of  their 
Executive  Committee,  the  interference  with  the  organization  of  the  Church, 
appeared  rather  nominal  than  actual.  They  did  indeed  pass  a  resolution, 
declarin<7  that  if  the  Trustees  should  not  signify  their  acceptance  of  office 
under  them,  v/ithin  a  fixed  time,  it  should  be  taken  as  evidence,  that  they 
declined  their  election ;  but  f.othing  was  alViinied  as  to  what  would  then 
be  done.  The  whole  groimd  was  lett  open,  and  the  only  provision  made, 
was  for  an  adjourned  meeling  on  the  evening  of  the  2d  of  December,  with- 
out any  thing  declaratory  of  their  farther  intentions.  Meanwhile  I  ad- 
dressed letteis  of  reproof  to  the  members  who  iiad  composed  the  meeting 
of  the  12th  November,  iiidividually,  as  follows: 

])ear  Brother — It  is  \\  ith  real  sorroAv  and  pain  of  heart,  that  I  teel  my- 
self compelled,  in  duty  to  the  Church  and  i/ou,  to  reprove  you  for  having 
been  guilty  of  "disobedience  to  the  order  and  discipline  of  the  Church,"  by 
joining  with  others,  on  the  12th  instant,  in  holding  a  meeting  and  passing 
resolutions  and  acts  contraiy  to  the  order  and  discipline  of  the  Church,  and 
in  contravention  thereof. 

Forbearing  ar.y  remarks  on  the  manner  of  forming  the  meeting,  (which 
Avas  most  otlbnsive  and  illegal)  I  beg  your  attention  to  the  following  brief 
sketch  of  some  of  the  most  reprehensible  of  its  transactions. 

Assuming  the  style  of  the  Corporalion  of  the  Church,  (a  title  assumed 
without  any  show  of  authority,)  and  making  a  pretext  of  the  act  of 
incorporation  passed  in  the  year  1787,  the  members  composing  the  meeting 
did  set  up  a  right  to  form  rules  for  the  government  of  the  Church,  and  to 
appoint,  choose,  and  displace  her  officers,  contrary  to  our  usages  and  the 
express  provisions  of  the  Discipline. 

Particularly,  they  passed  rules  and  iiy-laws  which  they  declared  should 
be  ''The  rule  of  government  of  the  Methodist  Episco'pal  Church  in  the 
city  of  Charleston,  in  matters  particuhuly  set  forth  in  them;  and  that  they 
be  considered  as  repealing  all  former  rules,  usages,  and  modes  of  manage- 
meut  in  the  said  Church,  which  may  be  repugnant  to  them." 

They  did,  in  the  same  evident  assumption  of  a  power  above  the  Discip- 
line, vacate  the  offices  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  held  under  the  Discipline. 


16 

nud  elect  (hcin   in  a  wiiy  conliarv   to  tljc  Discipline,     (See  Dis.  pp.  1G3, 
1G4.  Ed.  183-J.) 

Tliey  did  piu^s  and  declare,  that  the  Tnistecs  should  be  anrntally  elected; 
contrary  to  the  provisio.'s  of  the  Disrij)!ine  i:i  the  case.     (See  as  above.) 

They  did  set  aside  the  responsibility  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  to  the 
Quarterly  ConfcrcMce,  by  making  them  responsible  to  themselves,  directly 
against  the  Discipline,  page  107.  Ed.  1832. 

And  finally,  they  passed  to  the  eliect,  that  the  Book  of  Discipline  shall 
not  govern  in  cases  where  it  stands  opposed  to  their  rules. 

Dear  bi  other,  I  admonish  and  beseech  you,  as  you  love  peace  and  de- 
sire to  pursue  it;  as  you  fear  God  ar.d  seek  his  blessing,  withdraw  yourself 
from  all  participation  in  i)roceediiigs  so  ruinous  to  xXw.  Church,  and  which 
can  be  productive  of  no  good,  but  much  evil,  to  yourself  individually.  And 
may  God  most  graciously  grant  you  the  light  of  his  couuteiiance,  and  bless 
you  with  the  abur'dance  of  peace  for  evermore. 
Your  faithful  Pastor, 

W.  CAPERS. 

I  have  said  their  meeting  of  the  12th  November,  was  adjourned  to  the 
2d  December.  It  appeared  to  me,  and  the  ministers  with  me,  indispensa- 
ble to  anj'  amicable  adjustment,  that  the  corporation  party  should  not  pro- 
ceed to  carry  hito  effect  the  by-luws  adojjted  at  the  former  meeting,  and  so 
set  up  officers  antagonist  to  those  who  had  been  regularly  appointed,  and 
in  place,  according  to  the  Discipline.  It  was  a  principal  object  with  us  to 
induce  them  to  pass  the  adjourned  meeting  of  December  2,  without  going 
farther  toward  a  revolutionary  organization.  Brother  Kennedy,  whose 
interference  at  my  invitation  seemed  to  be  well  taken,  applied  himself  earn- 
estly towards  this  object,  and  on  Saturday  evening,  November  30,  he  in- 
formed me,  that  the  leading  nieml)ers  of  the  party,  had  agreed  to  suspend 
proceedings,  |>rovided  we  would  call  a  meeting  of  the  male  members  of 
the  Church  to  adopt  measures  for  the  sei'.lemcnt  of  the  questions,  whether 
tiie  corporation  of  the  Church  exists  or  not,  and  vests,  or  not,  in  the  male 
members  generally;  ai^d  also  to  express  an  opinion,  to  be  submitted  to  the 
Bishops  for  their  sanction,  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  Quarterly  Confer- 
ence should  hold  the  Trustees  responsible  to  it.  It  was  understood  that 
they  might  come  together  on  the  evening  of  the  2d,  according  to  their  pre- 
vious adjournment;  but  they  j)ledged  themselves  to  brother  Kennedy  to  do 
nothing  on  the  subjects  in  dispute.  With  this  positive  imderstanding,  no- 
tices were  publislied  from  all  our  pulpits  on  tho  evening  of  Sunday,  Dec. 
3d.  But  when  the  schismatics  met  on  Monday,  the  2d,  they  at  once  re- 
solved themselves  independent  of  their  engagements  with  us,  and  proceeded 
to  elect  nine  of  themselves  a  Board  of  Trustees,  and  twenty-five  an  Execu- 
tive Committee,  to  claim  and  maintain  their  '■'■inaVienahlc  7-ights"  (the  pro- 
perty of  the  Church)  as  settled  on  tlicmsclves  for  themselves  (and  of 
course  for  the  Church)  at  their  meeting  on  the  12th  November.  This  pro- 
ceeding blasted  at  a  stroke  all  hope  of  adjustment,  and  brotherly  confi- 
dence. Tuesday  evening  (Dec.  .3.)  found  us  nonplussed  and  heartless. 
We  could  oidy  state  in  (he  meeting  which  had  been  called  for  that  eve- 
ning, (and  we  did  state)  that  being  informed  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
corporation  party  on  the  previous  <3veuing,  and  wMch  were  in  utter  viola- 
tion of  their  pledge  to  the  Church,  as  communicated  through  brother  Ken- 


17 

iiedv,  it  was  impossible  for  us  to  propose  to  the  present  ineetiusf,  vhat  had 
hsen  contemplated  a?;  its  business'.  Brother  KoMncdy  rc-affirmed  in  pre- 
sence of  them  all.  what  they  had  promised,  as  h^  had  informed  me  from 
them,  and  no  man  denied  it.  O  le  of  them  however  said,  that  the  meeting 
oil  the  previous  evtr.in  •;  had  elected  their  Board  of  Trustees  and  Executive 
Committee,  under  Kn  nnpression  that  it  was  doing  no  more  than  had  been 
done  on  the  12th  of  NovcmbL-r,  and  did  not  7nean  by  it  to  falsify  their  en- 
gagements. And  besides  this,  no  explanation  or  excuse  was  attempted  by 
them.  The  only  act  of  our  meotiiig  of  the  3d  December,  was  an  appoint- 
ment, at  the  suggestion  of  brother  Kennedy,  of  a  day  of  fasting,  hnmili- 
ation,  and  prayer.  The  appointment  was  made  for  Friday',  December  G, 
and  the  prayer  meeting  held  in  Trinity  Church.  The  members  of  the 
Corporation  party,  however,  did  not  attend.  The  next  day,  (Saturday, 
December?)  I  took  with  me  the  brethren  Hugh  A.  C.  Walker,  and  Henry 
Muckinfuss,  senior,  (according  to  the  requirement  of  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Discipline,  "take  tctth  thee  one  or  two  more")  and  saw  severally,  and  con- 
vei'sed  with,  the  individuals  who  claimed  to  be  the  Board  of  Trustees,  in 
opposition  te  the  Church's  Board,  except  one  (Major  Laval.)  who  was  at 
Cohunbia,  and  another  (Mr.  Wm.  G.  Mood)  who  not  having  been  present 
in  their  meeting  of  the  12th  of  November,  had  not  been  privately  reproved, 
as  should  first  be  done.  And  when  we  could  not  prevail  on  them  to  de- 
sist from  their  schismatic  proceedings,  I  served  each  of  them  with  a  copy 
of  the  following  charge  and  specifications,  and  cited  them  to  attend  trial 
on  ^Monday,  the  9th  December,  at  3  o'clock,  P.  M. 

Charges  preferred  against  brother . 

"Disobedience  to  the  order  and  discipline  of  tJie  ChurcJi.^^ 

Specification  1st.  You  joined  with  others,  and  were  aiding  as  one,  to  re- 
fuse to  the  Presiding  Elder,  and  did  refuse  to  him,  the  right  of  his  office  to 
preside  in  a  meeting  of  the  Church  on  the  12th  ultimo — to  the  intent  that 
the  ministry  and  other  faithful  members  who  held  to  their  duty  under  the 
Discipline,  being  forced  to  withdraw,  you  and  those  who  had  conspired 
M'ith  you,  might,  with  greater  certainty,  adopt  measures  contrary  to  the 
order  and  discipline  of  the  Church. 

Specification  2nd.  After  the  meeting  of  the  Church,  above  mentioned, 
had  been  regularly  dismissed  with  prayer  and  the  benediction,  as  is  usual 
to  our  meetings,  you  did  join  with  others,  and  were  aiding  as  one,  then  and 
there  to  hold  a  meeting,  and  did  meet,  under  an  assumption  of  the  style  of 
the  corporation,  and  did  set  up  a  right  to  form  rules  for  the  government  of 
the  Church,  and  to  repeal  all  former  rules  and  usages  contrary  to  those 
which  were  thus  surreptitiously  adopted. 

Specification  3rd.  You  were  aiding,  then  and  subsequently,  to  vacate  the 
offices  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  as  held  under  the  Discipline,  and  elect, 
and  provide  for  elections,  of  a  Board  contrary  to  the  Discipline. 

Specification  4fh.  You  were  aiding  at  that  time  Mith  others,  to  set  aside 
the  responsibility  (if  the  Trustees  to  the  Quarterly  Conference,  as  is  re- 
quired bv  the  Discipline. 

Specification  "nh.  You  were  aiding  with  others  to  pass  and  declare  to 
the  efiect.  tiiat  the  Book  of  Discipline  shall  not  govern  in  cases  where  it 
stands  opposed  to  the  rules  adopted  by  the  meeting  afore=:aid. 

Decrmher  7.  1833. 
3 


i^ 


4 


18 


Tlie  following,'  is  a  copy  of  a  letter  which  1  received  during  the  atteruoon 
yf  December  7th,  though  it  boars  date  two  days  earhor.  I  pn  siiine  the 
interval  had  boen  occupied  in  "retting  signatures.  I  desiro  the  proposition 
it  contains  may  be  remembered. 

CHARLESTON,  December  o,  1833. 
Rev.  Dr.  William  Caper?. 
Reverend  and  Dear  Sir, 

The  under.>-igned  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  iu 
this  city,  viewing  with  deep  anxiety  the  present  distracted  state  of  the 
Churcb,  arising  from  a  difl'trence  of  opinion  with  regard  to  the  Church 
being  an  incorporated  body,  and  if  so,  who  are  the  incorporation,  attended 
the  meeting  in  Trinity  Church  on  'I'uesday  evening  last,  called  by  yourself, 
in  expectation  that  some  plan  would  be  proposed  to  settle  those  disputed 
points.  Being  disappointed  in  this  expectation,  but  being  desirous  that 
some  course  should  be  adopted  to  d(>cide  this  controversy,  propose  the 
following,  which,  if  concurred  in,  we  hope  will  produce  this  much  desired 
end,  and  so  peace  and  harmony  be  restored  among  us.  Let  the  disputed 
(luestious  with  regard  to  the  existence  of  the  corporation,  and  if  it  does 
exist,  of  whom  it  is  composed,  be  referred  to  the  three  Jtoges  ok 
THE  Appeal  Court  at  the  January  session  for  their  decision — such 
decision,  wlmtever  it  may  be,  to  he  final.  If  this  proposition  is  acceded  to, 
we  pledge  ourselves  to  remain  perfectly  quiet  as  to  the  disputed  questions, 
until  such  decision  is  made  known. 


We  are,  very  respectfully, 

JOHN  H.  HONOUR, 
W.  W.  GODFREY, 
F.  D.  POYAS. 
O.  B.  HILLARD, 
HENRY  W.  SMITH. 
ELI  AS  MEYNARDIE, 
P.  G.  BESSENT, 
EDWARD  F.  THWING, 
ROBERT  D.  WALKER. 
JOHN  BROWN, 
F.  A.  BECKMAN, 
WxM.  S.  WALKER, 
JOHN  DAVIS, 
WM.  G.  MOOD, 


J.  CLAFDIUS  MILLER, 
J.  F.  STEINMEYER, 
ROBERT  W.  BIJRNHAM. 
WM.  McBURNEY, 
JAMES  D.  KNIGHT, 
JOHN  KINGMAN, 
STEPHEN  THOMAS,  Jim. 
WM.  P.  LEA, 
C.  L.  HAPPOLDT, 
GEORGE  M.  KEILS, 
WM   K  IRK  WOOD. 
GEORtJE  S.  HACHER, 
JAMES  E.  GODFREY. 


Concerning  this  document,  we  need  interrupt  the  thread  of  our  narra- 
tive, at  this  place,  only  to  remark,  that  it  fell  short  in  hid  one  important 
particular,  of  being  such  as  might  have  been  acce[)tablc'.  The  signers 
had  formed  an  organization  in  the  Church  iiidf.pe.ident  of  :h<'  Discipline, 
and  in  direct  opposition  to  th;it  which  existed  under  ih.  Disciplii'c;  and 
we  could  not  concur  with  them  in  a  })roposition  to  let  th.ni  ^'■remain  per. 
fectly  quiet,"  with  this  antagonist  orguaizofion  in  the  Church.  Their 
proposition  was  just  what  we  had  coiiteniilited  doing  before  (h^y  elected 
their  opposition  Board  of  Trustees  and  Executive  Committee,  and  what 
they  themselvss  had  defeated  by  that  election.     It  is  most  '■^irrefragable 


^ 


19 

eridence,^^  however,  that  the  proposition  which  they  aftected  to  scout  ig 
January,  1834,  first  came,  in  form,  from  them  to  us  in  December,  1833. 

During  the  evening  of  the  same  clay  (December  7th,)  I  received  from 
the  persons  who  had  been  cited  to  trial,  the  following  note: 

''December  7, 1833." 
"Rev.  Dr.  Capers, 
Reverend  Sir, 

Having  been  cited  to  trial  on  Monday  next,  to  answer  to  the 
charge  of  "Disobedience  to  the  order  and  discipline  of  the  Church,"  we 
claim  the  privilege  afforded  us  by  the  Discipline,  page  — ,  Ed.  1832,  to 
bo  tried  by  the  Society. 

As  the  judicial  law  is  always  so  construed   as  to  favor  the  prisoner,  as 
far  as  possible,  mc   presume  the   Ecclesiastical  law  will   be  couttrucd  in 
the  same  way,  and  no  objection  be  made  to  this  course  of  procedure. 
We  are  very  respectfully. 

.1.  H.  HONOljR, 
F.  A.  BECKMAN. 
O.  B.  HILLARD, 
W.  W.  GODFREY. 
WILLIAM  KIRKWOOJ). 
GEO.  W.  KEILS, 
.INO.  KINGMAN. 
•JOHN  BROWN, 
ELIAS  MEYNARDIE. 

To  the  above,  I  answered  as  follows. 

"Dec.  7.  1833.'' 

/)far  Brethren, 

God  forbid  that  I  should  construe,  or  use  the    law  of  the 
Church,  either  partially,  or  in  pn  judicc,  towards  you,  or  others. 

The  universal  usage  of 'ho  Chtirch  in  large  societies  like  ours,  and  the 
invariable  practice  in  this  society,  tbrbids  my  complyiug  with  your  wish,  as 
expressed  in  your  letter,  to  have  you  tried  by  the  society.  It  would  be  a 
precedent*  of  evil  tendency;  and  with  respect  to  yourselves,  could  not  be 
fiirly  preferable  to  atrial  by  "a  select  number."  It  would  be  wholly  inad- 
missible  to  iiave  your  judges  of  ihose  who  iiref  under  censure  for  the  same 
iiiult  tor  which  you  are  to  b.' tried,  and  who  have  reasoii  to  believe  that 
their  owii  trials  are  shortly    pe.idii.g.     A-id    if  these  are  excepted,   as  of 

*  If  these  persons,  or  either  of  tliem.  inight  claiip  a  right  of  being  tried  by  the  whole 
society,  the  saine  might  be  cl<iined  b'  aiis  other  noused  person,  whenever  accused,  and 
on  whatever  charges.  Ihis,  in  a  society  so  numerous  as  that  in  Charleston,  would  a- 
mount  to  an  nnpossibility  of  having  the  accused  brought  to  trial;  or  would  subject  the 
Church  to  incalculable  trouble  and  vexation.  The  Discipline  provides  in  the  siuue  clause 
for  both  small  and  large  societies,  by  requiring  the  accused  to  be  brought  to  trial  ''before 
the  society  or  a  select  ?minbcr.'"  And  such  has  been  the  sense  of  the  words,  as  fixed 
by  universal  usage,  from  the  beginning. 

t  Letters  of  reproof  had  been  written  and  delivered  to  about  thirty  persoiK,  all  of 
whom  were  apprised  by  that  fict,  of  their  being  under  censure,  and  liable  to  be  brought 
10  trinl.  for  the  same  ofl'encc  as  the  persons  now  about  to  be  tried;  but  the  application 
lor  a  tri:d  i)y  the  society,  ^vas  uudisgiiisedly  iiiiead''d  to  get  the  benrfit  of  ilir  Mito-;  o1" 
ihiKi'  thirty  jiersoiis. 


20 

cuiuse  (h(-'\  hihould  be,  I  caiiiiot  tlii.ik  you  would  be  more  tuvoraMy  situattd 
before  tlie  society  than  belore  "a  select  mniiber."  Nor  do  I  find  either  in 
the  Discipline,  or  the  usages  of  the  Church,  that  the  persons  cited  to  trial 
have  ever  been  considered  as  entitled  to  determine  for  themselves,  whether 
llie  Society  or  a  select  munbcr  should  be  their  triers. 
I  am    brethren,  afl'ectionalely  yours, 

W.  CAPERS." 

Ou  Sunday  the  8lh  December,  while  my  mind  was  in  great  agony,  (it 
was  a  pain  ot  which  I  shall  never  be  ashamed.)  it  occurred  to  me  that  tho' 
I  had  utterly  failed  of  convincing  those  wlio  were  cited  to  trial,  of  the  great 
evil  of  their  conduct,  and  so  induce  them  by  argument  to  abandon  their  pro- 
ceedings, ['erhaps  the  failine  was  chiefly  owing  to  some  undetected  pride 
in  them,  which  kej)t  them  hood-winked  lo  their  faults,  and  could  it  be  sub- 
dued by  better  feeUngs,  they  might  be  induced  to  relinquish  what  they  had 
done.  I  determined  to  draw  uj)  such  a  paper  as  I  thought  woidd  preserve 
the  integrity  of  the  Discipline,  and  fry  the  force  oflove,  j)leading  with  them 
by  tears  and  entreaties,  (for  it  was  a  time  to  weep)  for  Christ's  s.ike,  for 
the  sake  of  their  wives  and  ohildren,  and  even  for  my  own  sake.  The  fol- 
lowing is  a  copy  of  the  document,  which  I  then  drew  up,  to  be  presented  to 
thc;m  for  their  signatures. 

"We  agree  to  retract  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting  of  the  12th  of  No- 
vember 1RS3,  and  of  an  adjourned  meeting  of  the  2nd  inst.  so  that  such  pro- 
ceedings shall  be  as  if  they  had  never  taken  place;  provided  that  the  records 
of  the  Church  and  the  deeds  of  conveyance  of  the  property  of  the  Church, 
and  such  other  testimony  as  may  be  judged  proper  by  a  meeting  of  the 
Church,bc  submitted  to  the  Judges  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  their  decis- 
sion  concerning  the  corporation  of  the  Church,  whetlier  it  exists  or  not? — 
and  if  existing,  in  whom  it  is  vested?  and  whether  or  not  such  corporation 
has  any  legal  right  to  tho  property  now  held  by  the  Church.  And  provi- 
ded  fiirther  that  if  the  .ludges  decide  that  tho  corporation  now  exists  in  the 
male  members  generally  of  tlie  Church,  then  a  meeting  of  them  shall  be 
called  by  the  ministry  for  the  purpose  of  adoj)ting  such  regulations  as  the 
meeting  may  deem  necessary,  not  interfering  with  the  judges'  decision  of 
the  right  of  property,  and  subject  to  the  revision  of  the  Bishop  or  Bishops 
attei'ding  the  South-Caroiina  ( -onfereuce,  who  shall  judge  of  their  atrrec- 
meat  with  the  Book  of  Discipline. 
V  ''December  8,  1233." 

Having  shown  the  above  to  my  colleaguos.  Rev.  .Joseph  Holmes,  Red- 
dick  Pierce,  a/id  H.  A.  C.  Walker,  and  they  approving  it,  I  went  first  to 
Mr.  John  Kingman.  He  objected  to  the  word  ''retract,"  in  the  first  sen- 
tence, a!:d  1  agreed  to  stri!;c  it  out,  and  change  the  form  of  the  sentence  so 
as  to  read  as  follows — "He  agree  that  the  ^Proceedings  of  the  meeting  of  the 
V2/h  Novrmher  1833,  and  of  the  adjourned  meeting  of  the  2nd  inst.  shall  be 
as  if  they  had  never  idkcn  ■place,''''  6fc.  He  then  took  the  paper,  and  agreed 
to  sh  -w  if  to  the  rest,  and  request  them  to  meet  nif;  at  Mr.  Honour's,  after 
prcaciirtig  that  night.  We  met  accordingly,  and  I  lost  no  time  to  tell  them 
all  my  heart.  I  was  pressed  above  measure.  I  told  them  I  had  not  come 
lo  argue  a  question  with  them,  but  to  entreat  them  for  Christ's  sake,  to 
s-n.ir-'tne.  fo  <pan>  fhr-mselvcs,  to  spare  their  wives  and  children,  the  most 


21 

painful  coasequcaces,  \Oiic!i  were  immiaeiit,  and  I  apprehended  inevitable, 
if  they  persisted  in  maintaining  their  party  organization.  Yes,  gentlemen, 
this  one  thing  jou  state  most  truly,  that  I  '^'tccpt  and jn-ayed"  and  I  must 
do  those  of  you  who  were  present,  the  justice  to  say  that  you  also  "wept 
and  prayed."  I  shall  never  forget  that  time,  and  never  repent  it,  and  could 
wish  tlie  same  for  you.  It  was  asked,  (I  think  by  Mr.  Godfrey,)  why  the 
paper  they  had  sent  me  the  day  before  (see  page  18,)  might  not  answer,  as 
well  as  the  one  now  oiTered  for  thoir  signatures?  And  I  replied,  it  could 
not,  for  this  one  reason,  that  their  paper  supposed  the  Cluirch's  connivance 
at  what  they  had  done,  by  allowing  their  organization,  though  inactive,  to 
continue  in  the  Church,  and  this  we  could  not  in  conscience  consent  to. — 
It  was  objected  that  if  they  should  then  accede  to  my  proposition  it  would 
probably  be  attributed  to  a  fear  of  punishment — they  being  presently  to  be 
tried;  and  to  meet  this  objection  I  proposed  farther  to  alter  the  first  sen- 
tence of  the  paper  so  as  to  express  on  its  facethe  motive  by  ichich  they  tcere 
infturnced. 

My  proposition  was  acceded  to,  and  the  paper  being  signed  by  the  indi- 
viduals most  concerned,  and  others,  the  citations  to  trial  were  withdrawn. 
It  was,  together  with  the  signatui'es,  as  follows:* 

"//J  kindness  to  the  opinions  and  feelings  of  the  Ministry  and  brethren, 
we  agroe,  that  (he  proceedings  of  the  meeting  of  the  12th  iSovember,  1833, 
and  of  the  adjourned  niijeling  of  the  2d  inst.  shall  be  as  if  they  had  never 
taken  place;  provided,  that  the  records  of  the  Church,  and  the  deeds  of 
conveyance  of  the  property  of  the  Church,  and  such  other  testimony  as 
may  be  judged  proper  by  a  meeting  of  the  Church,  be  submitted  to  the 
Judges  of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  for  their  decision  concerning  the  corpora, 
tion  of  the  Church,  whether  it  exists  or  not?  and  if  existing,  in  whom  it  is 
vested?  and  whether,  or  not,  such  corporation  has  any  legal  right  to  the 
property  now  held  by  the  Church.  And  provided  farther,  that  if  the 
Judges  decide  that  the  corporation  now  exists  in  the  male  members,  gen- 
erally, of  the  Church,  then  a  meeting  of  them  shall  be  called  by  the  minis- 
try, for  the  purpose  of  adopting  such  regulations  as  the  meeting  may  deem 
necessary,  not  interfering  with  the  Judges'  decision,  of  the  right  of  pro- 
perty, and  subject  to  the  revision  of  the  Bishop  or  Bishops  attending  the 
South. Carolina  Conference,  who  shall  judge  of  their  agreement  with  the 
Book  of  Discipline, 


'December  8,  1833." 
WM.  KIRKWOOD, 
J.  BROWN. 
WM.  G.  MOOD, 
F.  D.  POYAS, 
().  B.  HILLARD, 
W.  W.  GODFREY, 
JOHN  KINGMAN, 
ELIAS  MEYNARDIE, 
ASBURY  KINGMAN, 
F.  A.  BECKMAN, 
WM.  S.  WALKER. 


J.  H.  HONOUR, 
HENRY  W.  SMITH, 
J.  F.  STEINMEYER, 
P.  G.  BESSENT, 
J.  CLAUDIUS  MILLER. 
JOSEPH  A.  HINES, 
GEORGE  M.  KEILS, 
JAMES  D.  KNIGHT. 
JOHN  T.  SYME, 
JAMES  E.  GODFREY,  • 
WM.  McBURNEY. 


*  We  respectfully  invite  any  persons  who  may  wish  such  a  confirmation  of  the  above 
statement,  to  call  at  the  Parsonage  and  sec  for  themselves  the  original   document,   with 


The  above  adjwstnieiit  having  been  thus  I'ormally  ratilieil.  Monday,  the 
9th  December,  v  hich  had  been  looked  to  as  a  day  ot  trouble  and  sorrow  ot' 
heart,  proved  to  be  one  of  the  most  happy  that  could  be  experienced. 
Early  in  the  morning,  brother  Walker,  (one  of  my  colleagues)  went  to  in- 
form the  "select  number"  of  their  discharge,  and  I  hastened  to  give  the 
particulars  of  the  agreement  of  the  previous  evening,  to  such  of  the  Tnis- 
tees  and  elderly  members  as  I  could  find.  All  received  the  information 
with  delight,  and  most  of  them  with  tears  otjoy.  The  day  Wiis  passed  as 
a  high  festival  of  Christian  sympathy.  Brethren,  who  before  had  been 
estranged  from  each  other,  were  every  where  hastening  to  meet  in  love; 
and  if  there  had  been  cause,  (as  all  consented  there  was,)  to  ascribe  the 
adjustment  on  the  previous  evening  to  divine  interference,  there  was  now 
evidence  on  every  side,  that  God  was  with  us  of  a  truth.  The  ecstacy  of 
this  first  da}'  of  reconciliation  subsided  through  the  week  into  confidence 
and  peace;  and  except  one,  or  perhaps,  two  of  our  sisters,  who  said  they 
had  been  two  much  grieved  to  feel  at  ease  in  a  class-meeting  whose  leader 
had  so  recently  been  schismatic,  nothing  appeared  from  any  quarter  to 
give  the  least  uneasiness.  On  Sunday,  the  15th  December,  notice  was 
given  from  the  several  pulpits,  that  at  the  close  of  public  worship  in  Tri- 
nity Church,  on  Wednesday  evening,  the  18th,  there  would  be  held  a  meet- 
ing of  the  male  members  of  the  Church  generally,  which  all  were  requested 
to  attend.  The  meeting  was  fully  attended,  more  so  than  any  similar  one 
I  remember  to  have  held  in  Charleston.  Of  those  who  formed  the  party 
meetings  of  the  12th  November,  and  the  2d  Dec»:mber,  the  attendance  was 
particularly  full,  and  except  one  leading  individual  who  was  not  in  town, 
seemed  to  us  universiil.  We  missed  no  other  one  of  them.  With  respectto 
the  spirit  and  feelings  which  pervaded  the  meeting,  they  were  the  very  best. 
The  sermon  before  the  meeting  had  beeti  on  the  text,  "Behold  how  good 
and  how  pleasant  it  is  for  brethren  to  dwell  together  in  unity;"  {Psalm 
cxxxiii.)  and  the  meeting  itself,  exhibited  the  very  spirit  of  that  text. 
Every  thing  was  done  with  unanimity,  and  in  the  spirit  of  love.  So  we 
expected  it  to  be,  for  during  all  the  ten  days  whicii  had  elapsed  since  the 
adjustment  at  Mr,  Honour's,  on  the  evening  of  the  8th,  no  breath  of  dis- 
cord had  been  heard,  but  all  were  looking  to  the  present  meeting  as  the 
consummation  of  the  Church's  peace.  Introductory  to  the  business  of  the 
meeting,  my  remarks  were  the  kindest  I  knew  how  to  make.  Adverting 
to  the  adjustment  of  the  8th,  I  ascribed  it  wholly  to  a  spirit  of  mutual  con- 
cession for  Christ's  sake,  did  ample  justice  to  the  motives  of  those  who 
had  signed  the  paper,  (aa  on  all  occasions  I  did,)  and  congratulated  the 
meeting  on  the  restoration  of  harmony  and  love  among  us. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  proceedings  of  that  meeting,  copied  from 
the  Trustees'  Book,  in  which  the  minutes  were  recorded  by  the  jireacher 
in  charge, 

"Minutes  of  a  meeting  of  the  male  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  Charleston,  held  in  Trinity  Church,  (agreeably  to  notices  pub- 
licly  read  from  the  pulpits  of  the  several  Churches  on  the  previous  sabbath.) 
Wednesday  evening,  December  18,  1833, 

the  erasures  and  interliniations  above  mentioned,  and  the  signers"  iiuiiies.  Tiie  words 
which  were  insertpd  to  accommodate  their  feelings,  nnd  whifli  nr re  not  in  tlie  p;iper  a? 
at  first  drnwn  nji.  ;ire  those  in  itnlirt;. 


23 

"The  meeting  was  numerously  attended  by  the  members  of  the  Church, 
und  Avas  opened  with  singing  and  prayer  by  the  minister  in  charge,  who 
acted  as  cliairman.  He  adverted  to  the  occasion  of  the  meeting's  being 
called,  which  was  to  confirm  and  carry  into  effect  certain  stipulations  which 
had  been  agreed  on  between  himself  and  certain  brethren,  (who  also  were 
present  as  members  of  the  meeting,)  for  the  final  adjustment  of  the  difficul- 
ties, with  which  the  Church  had  been  much,  distressed,  concerning  lights 
of  corporation,  die.  -   .,■ 

"The  object  of  the  meeting  being  understood  to  be  well  known  and  uni- 
versally approved  by  the  brethren,  he  stated  that  he  had  drawn  up  a  paper 
expressive  of  that  object,  Avhich  he  would  read  to  the  meeting,  and  on 
which,  if  no  other  should  be  oflered  by  any  brother,  nor  any  amendments 
be  proposed,  the  meeting  might  act  by  vote.  He  then  read  the  following, 
to  wif: 

'Whereas  by  an  act  of  the  Legislature  of  this  State,  passed  in  the  year 
1787,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  this  city  was  incorporated,  and  it 
is  now  desirable  to  ascertain  in  tho  most  certain  manner  we  can  without 
litigation  in  the  courts,  wlmt  is  the  precise  situation  of  the  Church  in  rela- 
tion to  that  act,  therefore; 

'Resolved,  that  a  committee  consisting  of be  and  they  are  hereby  ap- 
pointed to  obtain  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  any  records  of  the  Church  in 
their  possession  bearing  on  the  case,  and  the  original  deeds  or  copies  of 
them,  of  all  the  property  of  the  Church  in  this  city,  and  to  lay  the  same, 
together  with  any  additional  testimony,  which  they,  or  either  of  them, 
shall  deem  important,  before  the  Judges  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  this 
State,  as  soon  as  may  be  convenient, — to  the  end  that  the  Judges  may 
make  up  and  express  their  opinion  oii  the  following  points,  to  wit: 

'1st.  Whether  the  incorporation  granted  by  the  Act  of  1787  now  exists, 
or  not. 

'2(id.  If  existing,  whether  it  vests  in  the  members  of  the  Church  gener- 
ally, or  in  the  official  members,  or  in  the  Trustees. 

'3rd.  Whether  the  property  of  the  Church  belongs  to  the  Corporation, 
and  can  be  held  and  disposed  of  by  Trustees  elected  by  the  corporation,  or 
not.' 

"The  above  having  been  distinctly  read  to  the  meeting,  and  seeming  to 
be  satisfactory,  no  substitute  or  amoiidment  b>ing  oflered,  the  blank  was 
filled  with  the  imnibcr  five;  and  the  following  bnthren  were  appoi:  ted  the 
committee  by  nomination  and  election,  one  by  one,  viz.  Samuel  J.  Wag- 
ner, Wilham  Laval,  Abol  McKee,  John  H.   Honour,  and  John  Kingman. 

Upon  the  vote  being  put  to  the  meeting  <d\\  tho  adoptior>  of  the  above  pre- 
amble and  resolution,  they  appeared  to  be  unanimously  carried. 

It  was  then  proposed  to  the  meeting  to  detirnnne  by  vote  how  a  record 
of  its  transactions  should  be  authenticated,  and  it  was  suggested  as  a  conve- 
nient mode  that*  the  minister  in  charge  should  write  down  and  certify  the 
same.     Tiiis  was  put  to  vote  and  carried  without  opposition. 

*  1  could  wish  that  some  other  inodo  had  heen  proposed  for  tlic  aulhcntication  of 
those  iniiiulcs;  l)ut  I  refer  to  the  book  whence  1  have  now  copied  them,  for  the  proof 
that  they  are  here  given,  as  they  were  tlien  set  down. 


24 

Afier  a  few  remarks  l»y  tlio  minister  in  charge,  chiefly  expressive  of  his 
happy  feehiigs  at  tlie  unity  and  concord  uhich  then  seemed  to  prevail,  the 
meeting  vas  adjourned  w  ith  prayer." 


"Agreeably  to  the  vote  last  above  mentioned.  I  have  recorded  the  above? 
as  the  minutes  of  the  meeting  of  the  l"^th  December  1833.  And  I  hereby 
certify  that  the  same  is  a  full  and  fuillilul  record  fifthe  proceedings  of  said 
meeting,"  "W.  CAPKRS, 

Minister  in  charfrc  of  Ihr  M.  E.  C.  Charleston,  So.  Ca. 
''December  19,  1833." 

As  a  farther  evidence  of  the  harmonious  character  of  this  meeting,  and 
the  happy  degree  to  vhich  brotherly  confidence  as  well  as  peace  had  been 
restored,  I  Mill  mention  the  manner  in  which  the  Conmiitteo  wn.s  elected. — 
The  first  nomination  was  that  of  Mr.  Wagner  (one  of  the  Trustees)  by  one 
of  the  corporation  partv.  Next,  two  nominations  were  made  simultaneous- 
ly, that  of  Major  Laval  (which  was  the  one  put,  though  at  the  time  he  was 
absent  at  Columbia)  was  carried  unanimously.  I\[r.  McKce  (another  of 
the  Trustees.)  was  nominated  by  one  of  the  corporation  parly,  and  Mr. 
Honour,  and  Mr.  Kingman  by  persons  most  opposed  to  their  former  schis- 
matic proceedings;  and  each  nomination  was  unanimously  voted.  P«rty, 
indeed,  there  was  now  none.  Either  wo  must  suppose  those  who  had  been 
a  party,  were  arrant  deceivers,  (which  we  dare  not,)  or  we  must  consider 
the  Mounds  of  the  Church  as  then  healed.  Ten  days  before,  Mhen  nine  of 
the  leading  members  of  tiie  party  Mere  on  the  eve  of  trial,  and  almost  cer- 
tain of  expulsion  from  the  Church,  and  the  rest,  generally.  Mere  under  an 
arrest  Mhich  uidcss  they  receded  must  eventuate  in  expulsion, — at  that 
aM'ful  crisis,  the  paper  copied  on  page  21,  M'as  signed  by  the  nine,  and  by 
thirteen  others;  including  every  individual  of  any  consideration  among 
them,  except  Major  Laval,  who  M-as  absent  from  the  city.  And  now,  after 
the  lapse  often  days,  in  a  general  meeting  of  the  male  members  of  the 
Church,  all  these  persons  attending  and  voting  at  the  meeting,  the  agree- 
ment of  the  Rth  of  December  M'as  solemidy  ratified  and  established.  What 
more  could  have  transpired  to  bind  men  by  every  consideration  of  religion 
or  honor  to  maintain  this  adjustment,  and  forbear  to  attempt  any  proceed- 
ings of  an  opposite  character? 

We  have  several  times  mentioned  Major  Laval's  absence  at  Columbia. 
He  returned  to  C'Imrlcston  a  fcM' days  after  our  meeting  oil  the  18th  De- 
cember;  and  shortly  aflerMards,  1  Mas  told  by  one  of  the  '  signers,  (Mr. 
Knight,)  that  some  M-hohad not  signed  the  paper  of  the  8th  December, 
Avere  dissatisfied,  and  he  apprehend<'d  Mould  protest  agaiost  the  M'hole  ad- 
justment M'bich  had  taken  place.  Hc^  did  not  intimate  hoMcver,  that  the 
dissatisfaction  extended  to  any  Mho  had  signed  the  paper,  but  the  contrary; 
and  the  only  reason  be  assigned  as  influencing  any  one  to  agitate  the  mat- 
ter farther,  M'as,  that  th*^  ])roceedings  of  the  party  mcetiiigs  of  Nov.  12, 
and  Dec.  2,  could  be  rescinded  only  by  a  party  meeting  like  those  M'hich 
had  adopted  them.  I  considered  this  too  puerile  fpr  serious  notice,  and 
let  it  pass,  as  probably  a  retreating  flourish  of  one  Mho  having  been  the 
prime  mover  of  our  difficulties  and  absent  at  their  adjustment,  thought  some 
shcAV  of  breath  due  to  his  importance. 


A  few  days  afterwards,  aud  when  I  should  have  coasidered  it  criminal  t© 
suppose  that  any  were  heartless  enough  to  violate  the  solemn  eiigagemeuts 
of  the  8th  and  the  18th  December,  I  set  out  for  the  Georgia  Conference. 
I  was  absent  above  three  weeks;  and  a  day  or  two  after  my  return,  Mr. 
Knight,  Mr.  Kingman,  and  Mr.  Honour,  called  at  tiie  parsonage,  I  knew 
not  in  what  capacity,)  and  informed  me  that  the  members  of  the  Corpora- 
tion party  held  themselves  free  from  the  obligation  of  their  signatures  on 
the  8th  December,  and  their  votes  in  the  meeting  of  the  18!h; — that  those 
members  of  the  committee  of  th(!  meeting  of  the  18tii  December,  Mho  were 
of  the  Corporation  party,  (and  they  hnppened  to  form  a  majority  of  the  com- 
mittee) had  declined  going  to  the  Judges  with  the  questions  committed  to 
them;  that  they  would  throw  themselves  back  oii  the  party  proceedi;igs  of 
November  12,  and  Decembf^r  2;  and  woiild  do  ;ill  (his  for  this  only  reason, 
which  was  assigned,  that  a  lawyer  had  ndvised  them,  tht;  Judges  could  not 
decide  the  legal  questions  in  dispute,  without  a  suit  at  law.  Mr.  Knight 
also  said  in  the  co)irse  of  conversation,  but  to  the  best  of  my  recolkction, 
did  not  niter  it  a.s  a  cause  of  the  re-orpanizntion  of  the  party,  (hat  it  was 
thought  I  might  have  said  more  than  I  did  say,  in  t'avor  of  their  motives  in 
my  remarks  at  the  meeting  of  the  18th  December,  (but.  positively,  not  one 
word  about  any  breach  of  promise.)  To  all  this  I  replied  but  briefly,  that 
I  had  expressed  myself  at  the  time  referred  to,  in  the  kindest  manner  I  was 
capable  of,  bating  nothing  to  my  knowledge;  but  if  I  had  failed  to  give 
satisfaction  to  any  one,  (not  '^if  I  had  done  wrong  "  &c.)  I  was  sorrA'  for  it, 
and  it  ought  to  have  been  told  me  during  the  twelve  days  which  had  elaps- 
ed after  the  meeting,  and  before  I  went  to  Georgia,  when  I  might  have 
seeji  to  it.  There  was  now  no  time  to  institute  proceedings  of  any  kind, 
the  Conference  being  at  hand;  and  the  whole  matter  must  lie  over  lor  my 
successor.  And  this,  gentlemen,  was  the  last  that  I  had  to  do,  or  saj', 
touching  your  affairs. 

You  have  done  me  great  injustice;  and  that  bv  unworthy  means. 

1st.  You  represent  me  as  leagued  with  the  coloured  people,  to  encoiw- 
age  their  intrusions  among  the  whites,  in  the  Churches,  "on  account  of 
their  wo/if //."  And  you  also  r-present  rm,  as,  first  advising  the  whites  to 
put  intruders  out  of  the  Church,  and  thei;,  when  they  had  done  so,  sternly 
rebuking  them  for  following  my  advice.  I  trust  it  has  bcii  made  appear, 
that  I  am  not  guilty  in  either  respect;  but  that  you  raised  a  cry  against  the 
colored  people  only  as  a  pretext,  (such  the  facts  do  prove,)  to  form  a  party 
in  the  Church  for  quite  another  purpose.  And  when  under  the  pretext  of 
maintaining  order  in  the  Churches,  you  had  stirred  up  strife,  and  were 
driving  the  colored  members  away  from  the  Church,  I  only  did  my  duty 
as  a  pastor,  by  reproving  a  rash  act  of  some  h;isty  you  <g  men,  and  endea- 
vouring  to  interpose  M'ith  Christian  exhorUori  to  prevent  an  evil. 

2nd.  The  real  parties  during  all  the  agitation  which  disturbed  the 
Church,  and  resulted  in  your  expulsion,  were  yourselves  and  those  who 
were  led  bv  you,  on  one  side,  and  the  Trustees,  supported  by  about  two- 
thirds  of  the  male  members,  on  the  other  side.  Th(^  Ministry  were  in- 
volved  in  it  only  as  they  were  charged  with  the  admi  listration  of  the  Dis- 
cipline; and  did  all  in  th^ir  power  to  save  you  from  the  consequences  of 
yotu*  schismatic  and  revolutionary  measures.  And  yet  to  assume  for  your- 
selves popular  ground,  you  have  all  along  represented  it  as  a  contest  bi-- 
tweon  the  membership,  struggling  for  their  rights,  and  the  Ministrx  I'.nnfi. 
4 


26 

iircri'  ir  o\(.T  lli(  III.  lleiicc  vou  liave  not  scnii)li'd  lo  iiso  such  o\piossioiis 
liF.  -'Thf  j)j-paclicr  was  not.  disposed  to  remain  quiet  and  submit  to  the  action 
of  the  Church"  (page  10;)  \\\\vn  by  refenjiice  to  llic  facts,  it  iiulisputubly 
appears,  that,  besides  the  preacljcr,  tliere  were  two-thirds,  or  more,  of  the 
male  members  of  the  Charcli,  who,  Uke  him,  wore  uot  disposed  "to  re- 
main qwiel  and  submit;"  and  many  of  the  most  respectabU-,  aged,  and 
godly  of  ihem,  were  urging  tho  preacher  to  have  you  brou'iht  to  trial  for 
that  very  thing  which  you  call  "Hhc  action  of  the  Churchy'  i.  e.  the  pro- 
ceedings of  your  schismalic  meeting  of  45  persons,  Nov.  12. 

3.  In  the  same  spirit  of  unrighteous  crimination,  you  have  invariably 
imputed  to  mc  the  very  worst  motives  for  my  conduct;  and  that,  when  the 
facts,  known  to  you,  forbid  the  possibility  of  my  being  governed  by  such 
motives.  I  will  instance  in  two  particulars.  1st.  As  early  as  the  fourth 
of  September,  which  was  the  first  moment  that  there  appeared  any  likeli- 
hood  of  an  altercation  between  the  Committee  of  the  Quarterly  Conlcr- 
cnce,  and  the  Board  of  Trustees,  I  resigned  the  place  of  Chairman  of  the 
Board,  and  told  the  Committee  1  had  dohe  so.  The  correspondence  be- 
twccn  the  Committee  and  myself,  (see  my  exposition  to  the  Church  in  No- 
vember,) proves  that  my  resignation  was  not  desired  by  the  conmiittee;  and 
exhibits  them  as  striving  hard  either  to  whip  me  back  into  the  oflice  of 
chairman,  or  to  urge  me,  as  the  Minister  in  charge,  "to  take  the  responsi- 
bility," of  interfering  with  the  functions  of  the  Board  of  Trustees.  Here 
then,  most  clearly,  there  was  no  act  of  power  exercised  by  mc,  nor  any 
sliow  of  a  love  of  power;  but  my  offence  consisted  in  the  very  opposite  of 
these,  i.  e.  that  I  had  resigned  the  office  of  Chairman  of  the  Board,  and 
could  not  be  driven  into  it  again;  and  that  I  could  not  be  induced  to  inter- 
fere with  the  proper  functions  of  the  lay  authorities  of  th(!  Church,  by  any 
means.  And  yet  you  have  the  conscience  to  attribute  mv  whole  course  in 
this  business  to  a  love  of  power  and  office!  (see  your  pamphlet,  page  3.) 
That  is  to  say,  I  loved  power,  and  therefore  could,  not  be  induced  to  exert 
it! — I  loved  to  exercise  my  spiritual  functions  i;s  Minister  in  charge,  against 
the  rights  of  the  lay  members;  and,  therefore,  could  not  be  induced  by  all 
the  vehemence  of  the  committee,  seconded  by  a  long  list  of  names  surrep- 
titiously obtained,  to  exceed  my  province  as  a  pastor,  and  dogmatize  over 
the  Board  of  Trustees! — I  loved  an  office,  and  therefore  I  resigned  it!  And 
because  I  loAcd  to  hold  the  office  which  I  had  resigned,  I  could  not  be 
urged  to  take  it  again! 

A  similar  instance  occurs  at  the  10th  page  of  vour  pamphlet;  where  vou 
hold  tlic  following  language:  "The  old  Board  had  adopted  a  by-law,  mak- 
ing, him  Chairman  of  the  Board,  ex  officio.  This  little  power  he  was  un- 
willing  to  have  taken  from  him,  and  determined  rather  than  do  so,  he 
would  expel  every  member  of  the  Church  who  should  be  guilty  of  the 
heinous  offence  of  doing  what  was  calculated  to  lessen  his  power."  This 
V'ou  I'Tve  p-ivpp  to  account  for  my  not  being  disposed  "<o  rei(iai7i  quiet  and 
sulmil  I',  the  action  of  the  Church,"  (i.  c.  your  factious  ineeting  of  Nov. 
12,  calif  d  b\  you,  but  never  admitted  by  others  to  be,  "the' Church.") 
Now,  v.  as  1  holding  the  office  of  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  at 
the  time  of  which  you  speak,  or  not?  If  not,  (and  you  know,  gentlemen, 
that  I  V.  us  not,)  how  could  an  unwillingness  to  have  it  taken  from  me,  form 
the  motive  of  my  conduct?  Will  you  say,  tliat  though  not  in  the  office,  I 
\\-Afi  I'ookinij  prosjiertively  lo  it?     No,  for  more  than  two  months  before  the 


27 

time  ot"  which  you  speak,  I  had  resigned  it,  and  could  Dof  be  induced  to 
take  it  again.  Yes,  two  months  and  eight  days  before -your  uotable  ^^actloii 
of  the  Church,"  when  you  took  upon  you  to  cut  down  tlie  Methodist 
Church  in  Charleston  to  forty-five  members,  (your  uUra-aristocratic  party.) 
and  made  a  new  constitution  for  it,  (the  minority  for  the  majority.)  and 
■would  force  it  upon  us  against  our  consciences — I  say  two  months  and 
eight  days  before  that  memorable  time,  I  resigned  the  ortice  of  Chairman 
of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  and  would  not  afterwards  be  either  induced  or 
driven  to  resume  it.  And  this,  gentlemen,  was  as  well  known  to  you  as  to 
myself,  though  you  have  chosen  to  make  the  statements  which  I  couM 
wish  you  had  spared  me  the  trouble  to  expose. 

It  should  not  be  surprising,  if  those  who  have  been  so  wanting  of  jus- 
tice, should  also  be  found  deficient  of  memory,  ajid  sutforing  the  evils  of 
a  morbid  imagination.  To  no  better  sources  can  be  ascribed  your  mere 
tales,  of  the  paper  I  read  in  the  society  meeting — the  semi-oaths  I  took  at 
Mr.  Honour's, — and  the  sorrow  I  professed  for  having  '*done  wrong  in  not 
fulfilhng  my  solemn  promises."  Of  the  paper  read  Nov.  12,  I  say  no 
more.  Of  the  promises,  (oaths,)  said  to  have  been  made  by  me  and  not 
fulfilled,  I  appeal  to  the  evidence  furnished  on  the  face  of  the  original  doc- 
ument, to  prove  that  the  feelings  of  the  signers  were  protected  against  the 
apprehended  imputation  of  their  being  coerced,  by  an  alteration  in  the  phra- 
seology of  the  paper,  B.i\d  not  any  thing  promised  to  ho  said  by  me  at  the 
society  meeting.  Nevertheless,  I  repeat,  I  did  express  myself  in  the  kind- 
est terms  at  the  meeting  of  the  18th  Dec.  and  so  as  was  evidently  accept- 
able at  that  time.  The  opposite,  is  an  after-thought,  whicli,  Gentlemen, 
whatever  it  may  do  for  "your  justilication,"  can  never  give  you  easier  con- 
sciences, or  compose  you  for  a  happy  death. 

Touchuig  your  offences  towards  the  Church,  during  my  administration 
of  the  Discipline  in  that  Church,  it  appears, 

1st.  That  you  seized  the  occasion  of  the  unlucky  resolutions  of  the  Q. 
Conf.  (favored  as  you  were  by  the  temper  of  the  committee,  who  were  of 
yourselves,)  to  form  a  faction  in  the  Church. 

2nd.  That  under  cover  of  being  zealous  for  the  Church,  and  the  proper 
management  of  her  temporal  affairs,  you  were  holding  secret  caucuses 
(chieffy  with  the  young  men  who  formed  Mr.  Beckman's  and  Mr.  Mood's 
classes,)  in  Trinity  School-room;  the  object  of  which  was,  to  assume  the 
right  of  the  corporation  of  the  Church,  and  on  that  basis,  to  take  possession 
of  its  property,  and  control  its  Discipline. 

3rd.  That  having  matured  your  plans,  and  got  your  party  ready  for  ac- 
tion, you  abused  the  charity  of  the  preachers  (who  could  not  think  of  you 
as  ill  as  you  deserved,)  to  get  a  meeting  called  of  the  male  members  of  the 
Church;  at  which,  you  counted  the  attendance  would  not  probably  be  so 
full,  but  that  your  whole  number  being  mustered,  you  might  prove  a  ma- 
jority. At  this  meeting,  finding  it  to  happen  as  you  had  expected,  and  on- 
ly about  half  the  male  members  present,  you  insisted  on  calling  it  a  meeting 
of  the  corporation,  refused  the  right  of  the  chair  to  the  Presiding  Elder,  and 
demanded  an  election  of  a  chairman  for  yovirselves. 

4th.  That  having  thus  obliged  the  ministry  either  to  dismiss  the  meeting 
or  sanction  measures  contrary  to  their  consciences,  and  the  meeting  lieir.g 
dismissed  in  the  usual  way  with  prayer  and  the  benediction,  and  the  minis- 
try and  members  not  of  vour  party  withdrawn,  (excenf   fiv*^  or  six  win  re- 


28 

iiiained  to  satislV  themselves  as  to  Avliat  you  were  about  to  do.) — You  le- 
Kolvod  your  parly  into  the  Corporation  of  tho  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  Charleston — :ulopted  on  this  assumption,  a  Constitution  (iufact  a  Con- 
stitution, thoujxli  called  by-laws)  for  the  Church,  enacting  it  as  the  supreme 
limiting  law  of  Discipline,  adopting  the  Churcli's  Book  of  Discipline  only 
as  secondary  to  vour  bv-laws,  and  nullifying  all  rules  or  modes  of  manage- 
ment which  were  of  authority  in  the  Church  contrary  to  this  new-fangled 
by-law  constitution.  And  so  taking  to  yourselves,  in  all  respects,  conven- 
tional authority  over  the  Church. 

r)th.  That  for  all  this,  you  would  bear  no  reproof,  heed  no  persuasion, 
be  convinced  by  no  argument,  either  of  your  ministers  or  others. 

6th.  That  when  through  the  intervention  of  Mr.  Kennedy,  you  had  pro- 
mised to  abide  a  mcetinn  of  the  male  members  of  the  Church  on  the  3rd 
of  December,  and,  in  the  interval,  to  forbear  all  farther  proceedings,  you 
nevertheless  did  meet  on  the  evening  of  the  2nd  December,  and  carry  fully 
out  your  revolutionary  measures. 

7th.  That  when  you  had  thus  forestalled  the  Church,  in  violation  of 
your  pledge  to  the  ministry  through  Mr.  Kennedy,  and  a  day  of  fasting, 
humiliation  and  prayer  was  appointed  to  implore  the  guidance  of  Almighty 
God,  you  treated  it  with  neglect;  as  if  too  confident  in  yourselves  to  ask 
wisdom  from  above,  or  in  contempt  of  the  pious  feelings  of  your  brethren. 

8th.  That  when  you  had  driven  the  Church  to  the  last  extremity,  and  as 
the  only  remaining  means  of  preserving  the  integrity  of  the  Discipline,  you 
were  summoned  to  trial,  and  under  circumstances  that  made  your  expulsion 
almost  <;ertain,  you  agreed  to  and  signed  a  paper,  on  the  8th  December,  by 
which  you  renounced  your  schismatic  proceedings  of  the  12th  of  November 
and  the  2nd  December,  on  the  condition  of  your  being  released  from  trial, 
and  having  the  legal  questions  about  the  corporation  referred  to  the  .ludges 
•f  the  Court  of  Appeals: — A  reference  which  you  yourselves  h;id  but  just 
proposed,  only  that  you  would  not,  then  consent  to  renounce  your  antago- 
nist organization  in  the  Church. 

On  the  18th  December  a  Church  meeting  was  held  for  the  purpose  of 
establishing,  and  providing  for  the  execution  of  the  stipulations  which  had 
been  agreed  on  between  us.  This  meeting  was  attended  by  your  party  as 
members  in  common  with  the  rest  of  the  Church;  audits  acts  were  done 
with  the  affirmative  votes  of  all  who  were  present,  yours  equally  with  oth- 
ers. But  notwithstanding  all  this,  you,  first  on  one  pretence,  and  then  on 
another,  changing  the  reason  as  fast  as  you  could  find  a  better  (as  that  1st, 
the  proceedings  of  the  12th  Nov.  and  2iid  Dec.  being  had  in  party  meet- 
ings, none  but  party  meetings  could  undo  them;  2nd.  That  the  Judges  could 
not  act;  and  3rd.  that  I  had  not  fulfilled  my  promise,)  did  violate,  for  a  se- 
cond time,  your  engagement  with  the  CJiurch,  and  throw  yourselves  back 
on  your  schismatic  proceedings  of  Nov.  12.  and  Dec.  2. 

And  in  this  position,  the  conference  year  being  at  its  close,  I  left  you. 

And  now,  gentlemen,  I  take  my  final  leave  of  you.  At  your  own  leisure 
you  prepared  and  published  what  has  obliged  me  to  take  the  present  trouble. 
We  reprint  your  pamphlet,  and  append  it  to  our  reply,  that  a  full  view  may 
at  once  be  had  of  the  whole  case.  We  wish  you  no  evil,  and  would  do 
you  no  wrong;  but  I  have  not  spared  you  the  naked  truth.  To  you  I  Avas, 
but  am  not.  Nay,  you  hold  me  as  never  having  been.  You  have  now  no 
Knowledge  but  by  second-sight.     The  past  you  have  obliterated.      Every 


29 

christian,  every  manly  tie  that  has  bound  between  us,  you  have  severed 
and  despised.  Be  it  so.  There  is  One  Avho  judges,  and  to  Him  I  commit 
my  cause. 

Having  now  answered,  for  myself,  your  cruel  allegations,  as  in  dutv  to 
religion  I  was  bound  to  do,  it  is  my  purpose  to  take  no  notice  henceforth  of 
any  publications  you  may  choose  to  make.  Humbled  by  you  for  the  un- 
profitableness of  my  ministry,  and  praying  God  to  forgive  the  wrongs  you 
have  done  me,  I  bid  vou  farewell. 

W.  CAPERS. 


Note. — The  references  to  the  Exposition  of  the  Schismatics  have  been  made  accor- 
ding to  the  form  of  the  pamphlet  which  they  published,  and  not  our  republication  of  it 
as  appended  to  the  present  Exposition.  The  pages,  therefore,  will  not  be  found  to  agree 
with  our  references.  The  reader  will  please  refer  by  the  quotations  made,  and  not  the 
pages  given,  to  satisfy  himself  as  to  our  correctness.  W.  C 


I IIK  EXPOSITION  CONTINLEI). 


In  tlie  iircccJiiiji  part  ot"  this  painplilcl,  Dr.  Capt'is  lias  jxivcii  ;i  narration 
<»r  the  origin  and  progress  ot"  the  Schism  in  tlio  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  this  City,  up  to  the  last  Annual  Conference,  held  5th  February,  of  the 
present  year.  It  becomes  our  duty  to  continue  the  narrative,  as  those  who 
in  part  arc  held  accountable  for  its  unhappy  termination,  in  the  expulsion 
of  some,  und  the  secession  of  others  from  the  Church.  In  doing  this,  wo 
shall  take  up  the  several  circumstances  in  their  order,  as  stated  in  the  pub- 
lication to  which  we  reply. 

We  have  been  arraigned  before  the  public  as  tyranls  and  aristocrats,  and 
our  administration  of  Discipline,  represented  as  partial,  unjust,  and  arbitra- 
r\'.  Whether  any  one  act,  or  any  number  of  acts  connected  with  our 
course,  will  justify  the  apphcation  of  such  epithets  to  us,  or  whether  the 
complainants  have  been  actually  oppressed,  or  have  received  only  the  re- 
Avard  due  to  their  offences,  we  shall  leave  to  the  community  to  determine, 
when  they  shall  have  read  our  explanations  of  whu;,  from  the  representa- 
tion of  our  accusers,  may  seem  to  la  vour  their  side  of  the  question.  We 
shall  develope  facls  which  have  been  omitted,  (whether  ignorantly  or  in- 
tentionally, it  is  not  our  business  to  say,)  in  the  pamphlet  before  the  public, 
and  which  will  exculpate  us  in  the  judgment  of  every  resonable  man,  from 
the  charges  made  against  us  by  its  authors.  It  is  our  purpose  to  correct 
errors — to  explain  facts — and  to  bring  to  light  the  hidden  or  forgotten  things 
which  have  an  important  bearing  on  the  case.  For  argument,  defensive  of 
our  economy,  we  bave  not  time,  nor  is  it  needed.  Our  administration  of 
the  Discipline  is  called  in  (piestion,  and  to  the  defence  of  it  we  devote  the 
following  pages.  Conscious  of  having  tried  to  perform  our  duty  to  the 
Church,  in  the  fear  of  (iod.  and  well  knowing  that  we  are  sustained  by  the 
facts — we  believe  that  a  full  development  will  result  in  our  unqualified  jus- 
tification.    We  ask  nothing  but  a  patient,  impartial  perusal. 

At  the  first  Quarterly  Conference  of  the  present  year,  a  motion  teas  made, 
that  a  Committee  he  appointed  to  examine  the  books  of  the  old  Trustees,  and 
report  to  the  Conference.  This  was  immediately  objected  to  by  the  princi^ 
pal  memher  of  the  Board,  and  the  objection  sustained  by  the  President,  Mr. 
Bass,  ivho  declared  the  inolion  out  of  order.  Was  such  a  thing  ever  heard 
of  beforel"  We  will  make  a  remark  or  two,  and  leave  it  to  our  readers  to 
determine,  which  was  the  most  extraordinary,  the  motion  or  the  decision  of 
the  President. 

First.  There  Avas  no  necessity  for  the  examination  proposeil — the 
Board  having  made  a  Report  not  three  months  before.  Second.  It  was 
not  the  usual  time — the  fourth  Quarterly  Conference  being  the  time  devoted 
to  the  investigation  of  the  acts  of  the  Trustees.  Third.  The  Trustees  are 
■under  no  obligation  to  show  their  books,  in  obedience  to  everj'  capricious 


I 


31 

demand.  Fourth.  The  Discipline  does  not  require  ii\  but  simply,  that  the 
Board  make  "a  I'eport  of  their  acts  during  the  preceding  year."  Fifth. 
Why  was  not  this  motion  made  at  the  fourth  Quarterly  Conference  of  the 
past  year,  when  the  Treasurer  made  ins  report,  as  we  are  told,  and  omit- 
ted some  very  important  acts?"  Sixth.  It'  was  a  "thing  never  heard  of 
before."* 

The  paper  submitted  to  the  Church  on  the  IGth  of  February  last,  by 
Bishop  Emonj,  comes  next  under  consideration.  '"The  harmonious  ad- 
justment  of  all  existing  ditliculties  in  the  Church  in  this  city,"  was  the  ob- 
ject of  this  arrangement.  The  following  questions  were  submitted  to  the 
adjudication  of  the  Bishops:  1st.  Whether  an  incorporation,  cither  of  the 
Trustees,  or  of  the  male  members  of  the  Church,  is  inconsistent  with  the 
Discipline?  2.  Whether,  in  case  of  such  an  incorporation,  the  principle 
of  electing  Trustees  by  the  votes  of  the  male  members  of  the  Church,  at 
such  times,  and  in  such  manner  as  might  be  agreed  on,  v.ould  be  inconsis- 
tent with  the  Discipline,  provided,  it  be  the  wish  of  the  Church  in  this  city 
to  adopt  sucli  a  principle. 

We  arc  informed  by  tiie  gentlemen,  (hat  an  interview  took  place  between 
Bishop  Emory  and  "the  Chairman  and  Secretary  of  the  new  Board  of 
Trustees,  who  had,  on  seiieral  occasions,  represented,  the  Corporation  party; 
in  the  presence  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bass,  Presiding  Elder,  and  the  Rev.  Mr., 
Kennedy,  the  preacher  in  charge."  The  obvious  design  of  this  statement 
is,  to  make  the  impression,  that  Mr.  Bass  and  Mr.  Kennedy  were  the  re- 
presentatives of  the  Trustees.  We  are  confirmed  in  this  view  by  another 
part  of  the  narrative,  in  which  it  is  said,  one  of  the  preachers  (meaning  Mr. 
K.)  was  Chairman  of  the  Board.  Now  hear  the  facts.  Mr.  Bass  had 
and  has  nothing  to  do — no  connection  with  the  Board  of  Trustees.  Mr. 
Kennedy  had  not.  at  the  time  referred  to,  entered  upon  the  duties  of  the 
station — the  Annual  Conference,  at  which  he  received  his  appointment  to 
this  place,  had  adjourned  but  two  or  three  days  previous,  and  he  did  not 
take  charge  of  the  Church  here,  until  nearlj-  or  quite  two  weeks  after. 
True  a  by-law  of  the  Board  makes  the  preacher  in  charge  of  the  station 
ex  officio  Chairman.  Mr.  Kennedy  had  never  met  the  Board,  and  the 
charge  of  the  station  was  committed  to  Mr.  Martin,  one  of  his  colleaguels, 
until  his  own  return  from  Columbia.  Mr.  Bass,  and  Mr.  Kennedy  had 
no  right  either  to  represent  the  Trustees,  or  to  object  to  the  plan  pro- 
posed by  the  Bishop — their  approval  was  unimportant  if  the  plan  M^as 
adopted  as  the  basis  of  an  adjustment  by  the  parties  concerned,  and  the 
Bishops  decided  upon  it.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  Mr.  Bass,  and  Mr.  Ken- 
nedy, not  only  did  not,  but  under  the  circumstances,  cotdd  not  repre- 
SKNT  the  Trustees  in  the  aforementioned  interview.  If  the  preachers  did 
approve — their  approval  can  not,  with  any  sort  of  propriety,  be  interpreted 
as  the  approval  ot'the  Board.  Again — The  Tinjstees  were  never  consul- 
ted as  to  their  opinion  of  the  plan,  consequently  never  agreed,  to  it.  That 
they  did  not  agree,  we  can  prove  from  the  Bishop's  statement,  in  his  re- 
marks introductory  to  the  reading  of  the  paper  in  Trinity  Chui'ch — the 
paper  itself — th(>ir  letter  and  the  statement  of  THE^R  accusers.  The 
Jiishop  said,  in  the  hearing  of  all  present,  before  reading  the  paper,  that  he 


*  See  another  reason  assigned  by  the  Trustees  in  the  Appendix. 


32 

could  not  say  that  the  Trusters  approved  the  plan — not  having  had  the  uppor- 
Ixinity  to  consult  tukm. 

The  paper  says,  "the  bretlircu  \\\\o  claim  llio  exercise  of  corporate  pow. 
ers  agree"  thus  and  so.  Why  this  exclusive  clause  if  the  Trustees  did  a. 
gree?" 

The  Trustees  in  their  letter  to  the  Bishop  a  few  days  after  he  left  the 
city,  say,  "they  had  not  the  least  intimation  of  such  a  paper  previous  to  the 
day  on  which  it  was  read,"  and  tlien  add,  "we  cannot  say  that  it  meets 
with  our  approval,"  and  assign  some  reasons.  (The  whole  letter  can  bo 
given  if  necessary.) 

We  wish  the  following  marked  especially.  If  the  Trustees  did  agree — 
why  did  thry  (the  represetitalivt's  of  the  ('orporation  mLinbrrs)  ask  the  Bish- 
op previously  to  his  reading  thr  paper  in  the  Church,  ''what  security  theii 
(the  corporation  p-drty)  had  that  the  Trustees  icould  agree  to  the  arrange- 
ment." If  it  was  "expressly  understood"  that  the  Trustees  had  consented 
to  the  arrangement,  and  the  gentk men  knew  it,  as  they  give  us  to  under- 
stand  they  did,  is  it  likely  they  would  have  asked  the  question  above? 

W'e  have  proved  that  the  Trustees  never  did  accede  to  the  proposition; 
they  never  had  the  opportunity  to  say  a  word  upon  the  subject,  except  in  the 
way  they  adopted — by  letter. 

The  question  is  asked  "i/"  one  party  considered  tliemsehes  pledged  because 
two  members  had  agreed  to  the  proposal,  ought  we  not  f«  all  conscience  to 
suppose  that  the  otlier  party  shoidd  be  bound  by  the  agreement  of  the  preach- 
ers?" Most  certainly  not.  Because  Major  Laval  and  Mr.  Honour  pre- 
scribe and  dictate  to  their  party,  therefore  tlie  Trustees  must  be  bound  by 
the  agreement  of  the  preachers!     Strange  reasoning  this! 

If  the  proposition  of  the  Bishop  did  not  meet  tlie  views  of  the  old  Trustees, 
why  did  they  not  say  so  at  the  time  lie  publicly  read  itV  It  might  be  suffi- 
cient to  answer — they  had  more  politeness  than  to  interrupt  an  officer  of  tlie 
Church  in  the  performance  of  his  duty.  But  we  add — it  was  not  the  time  to 
file  objections — but  a  few  of  the  Trustees  were  present  ,and  they  were  not 
at  liberty  to  give  fAeir  opinion  as  the  sentiment  oi'  all — there  had  been 
no  official  meeting  of  the  Board,  and  there  could  not  have  been,  for  the  Trus- 
tees  knew  nothing  of  the  paper  till  read.     Are  not  these  reasons  sufficient? 

The  "official  7iotic€"  which  the  Bishop  received  is  mentioned  in  such  a 
way  as  to  insinuate  very  strongly  that  Mr.  K.  who  is  ex-officio  chairman  of 
the  Board,  and  ''who  had  frequently  expressed  his  astonishment  at  the  Bish- 
op^s  not  sending  on  the  decision"  knew  the  reason  and  was  therefore  guilty 
of  a  wilful  deception.  The  authors  of  the  pamphlet  say,  that  Bishop  E. 
in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Kennedy  stated  that  he  had  received  a  letter  from  the 
Trustees  (the  one  before  alluded  to)  and  "he  thought  it  unnecessary  to  for- 
ward" the  decision.  We  shall  see  how  little  these  assertions  correspond 
with  the  facts  in  the  case. 

The  letter  to  Bishop  Emory  was  written  by  the  direction  of  the  wliole 
Board,  and  so  was  official.  But  is  Mr.  K.  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Trus- 
tees? Is  his  name  mentioned  by  the  Bishop  in  his  enumeration  of  those 
whose  names  were  signed  to  the  letter?  He  says  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Ken- 
nedy— "some  time  in  April  last  I  received  a  letter  from  brothers  McKee, 
Bird,  Just,  Chritzburg,  Muckinfuss,  Seyle  and  W^agner.  officially  notifying 
me."  Mr.  K.  ibas  not  present  when  the  Board  direc'ted  (he  letter  to  be  writ- 
ten, nor  was  he  iufornicd  that  any  such  communication  had  been    transmit- 


■33 

tetl  until  long  after.  The  ofiicial  character  ofihe  Board  tloes  net  depend 
vpon  the  presence  of  Mr.  K.  or  any  other  preacher. 

But  the  geatlenien  of  the  Corporation  "■felt  indignant  at  the  duplicity  of 
those  in  whose  promises  they  had  conjided.^^  In  whose  promises  had  tiiey 
coafided?  lu  the  promise  of  the  Trustees?  They  mean  tiie  Trustees  wo 
apprehend — but  we  have  proven  already  that  they  made  none.  In  (he  pro- 
mise of  the  Bishop?  Has  he  refused  to  comply?  According  to  the  view 
before  us,  he  was  to  send  on  the  decision  whether  he  could  or  not.  He  has 
not  refused  to  send  it,  nor  liushe  said  that  he  thought  it  ^'■unnecessary^^  to 
send  It.  His  words  are  "I  ii::ve  hesitated  as  to  the  pro])riety  of  communi- 
cating tlic  judgment  since  in  such  circumstances  it  would  probably  not  ef- 
fect the  obji'ct  we  have  in  view — the  peace  of  the  Church."  But  is  hesita- 
lion — refusal  to  commmiicate,  or  a  d(!claration  that  he  thought  it  "unneces- 
sary?" But  to  what  circumstance  does  he  allude  in  the  above  quoted  re- 
mark. The  foUowmg — "if  the  brethren  on  both  sides  did  not  agree  to  a- 
bide  by  the  measures  stated  in  the  paper,  {not  the  decision  of  (he  Bishops  as 
the  gentlemen  would  have  us  to  bi  lieve)  he  did  not  think  it  likely  that  the 
peace  of  the  Chnrch  would  be  promoted  by  (he  communication  of  the  judg- 
ment,  "I  should  be  glad,  sa}^s  \\c,  to  know  the  wish  of  the  brethren  on  (his 
point."  Where  is  the  duplicity?  Where  is  the  refusal  to  comply?  Was 
the  Bishop's  promise  to  send  the  decision  to  extend  only  to  the  last  day  of 
the  two  months  spoken  of  by  them?  Did  he  bind  himself  down  to  hours, 
minutes,  and  seconds?  No,  the  plain  meanijg  of  the  thing  was,  he  was  to 
send  it  as  soon  as  he  could.  Why  then  has  it  not  been  transmitted?  The 
answer  to  this  question  will  show  loho  has  violated  the  articles  of  agree- 
ment. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  soon  after  the  reception  of  the 
Bishop's  letter,  the  Preacher  in  Charge  advised  them  by  all  means  (o  accede 
to  the  plan,  and  request  the  Bishop  to  forward  it  at  once.  They  approved  the? 
cou  sel  of  the  Preacher,  and  he  was  about  to  address  the  Bishop,  when  lo! 
certain  inflammatory  resolutions  passed  by  a  meeting  of  the  corporation  par- 
ty, were  handed  inland  thus  the  whole  arrangement  was  broken  up.  We 
subjoin  an  account  of  the  meeting  at  which  the  resolutions  were  past. 

A  meeting  of  the  male  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
vas  held  at  Trinity  School  Room,  July  5th,  1834. 

Brother  .lohn  Kingman  was  called  to  the  Chair,  and  Wm.  M'Burney 
appointed  Secretary.  The  Chairman  stated,  that  the  o!))ect  of  the  meet- 
ing was  to  confer  together  on  a  letter  received  from  Bishop  Emory  by 
Brother  Wm.  M.  Ke;inedy,  in  reply  to  the  letter  recentJy  addressed  to  liira 
by  Brother  Joh    H.  Honour,  on  the  subject  of  our  Chnrch  difficulties.   . 

The  letter  was  then  read  by  the  Chairman,  whereupon  Brother  John  H. 
Hoiiour  addressed  the  meeti  ig,  and  submitted  the  following  Preamble  and 
Re-solutions,  whirh  were  severally  put  to  the  meeting,  and  unanimously 
adopted: 

Whereas,  a  lettm*  his  been  received  in  this  city,  from  the  Rev.  Bishop 
Emory,  from  which  it  appears  that  a  Communicdtion  was  made  to  him 
some  time  in  April  last,  by  the  late  Board  of  Trustees,  in  which  they  state 
their  disapproval  of  the  paper  read  in  Trinity  Church,  by  the  said  Bishop, 
on  the  IGth  of  Februar}'  last,  as  a  basis  for  an  adjustment  of  onr  Church 
difficulties.     Therefore. 


34 

Be  it  Rfsoheil,  That  tl»c  promise  made  by  us  to  agree  to  the  arrauge- 
fiient  stated  in  the  abovcmeiitioncd  paper,  is  no  longer  binding  upon  us, 
inasmuch  as  the  promise  vas  made  conditionally,  that  the  late  Trustees 
agree  likewise. 

Resotvff],  That  the  refusal  of  the  late  Trustees,  to  accede  to  the  propo- 
sitions contained  in  said  paper,  is  additional  evidence  of  their  determina- 
tion to  manage  the  temporalities  of  the  Church,  according  to  their  own 
discretion,  without  control,  at  all  hazards,  whether  in  conformity  to,  or  in 
direct  violation  of  Discipline. 

Resolccd,  That  we  will  not  hereafter  agree  to  aiiy  proposal  of  accom- 
modation, come  from  what  quarter  it  may,  that  is  not  based  upon  the  Con- 
stitution and  By-Laws  of  the  Corporation  ado|)ted. 

Resolved,  That  we  will  not  any  longer  suJfcr  our  rights,  as  members  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  be  trampled  upon,  or  action  on  our 
part  suspended  by  unmeaning  offers  of  accommodation;  but  will  pursue  all 
proper  methods,  whether  in  Church,  in  Law.  or  in  Equity,  as  may  appear 
to  us  most  expedient  for  obtaining  those  rights.  Provided,  the  same  be  not 
a  palpable  violation  of  Discipline. 

Resolved,  That  these  proceedings,  be  signed  by  the  Chairman  and  Secre- 
tary, and  a  copy  thereof  handed  to  the  Preacher  in  Charge  of  this  station; 
and  also  that  they  be  laid  before  the  Corporation  at  its  first  meeting. 

Signed".  JOHN  KINGMAN,  Chairman. 

Wm.  McBurxey,  Secretary. 

As  our  readers  wHl  perceive,  these  resolutions  declare,  "that  the  promise 
made  by  them  to  the  Bishop  is  no  longer  binding;  that  they  would  not 
hereafter  agree  to  any  proposal  of  accommodation,  come  from  what  quar- 
ter it  may,  that  is  not  based  upon  the  Constitution  and  hi/daus  of  the  Corpo- 
tion,  that  they  will  pursue  all  propt  r  methods,  (of  which  they  of  course 
are  to  be  the  judges)  whether  in  Church,  in  law,  or  in  equity,  as  may  ap- 
pear  most  expedient  for  obtaining  their  rights,  provided  the  same  be  not 
a  palpable  violation  of  Discipline."  (Of  course  if  the  violation  is  not  "pal- 
pable," that  is  according  to  the  dcfmiliou  the  gentlemen  have  given  us  in 
another  place,  ^^evident  to  every  body,"  thi.  y  will  not  hesitate.  The  viola- 
tion would  be  a  trifle;  the  discovery  of  it  to  be  prevented  if  possible,  as  that 
might  be  attended  with  unpleasant  consequences.)  In  the  above  it  is  seen 
that  the  members  of  the  corporation  party,  absolve  themselves  from  alle- 
giance to  every  thing  but  the  Constitution  and  by-laws,  adopted  _  by  them 
on  the  12th  Nov.  last.  This  is  th.'  supreme  law,  and  they  are  the  supreme 
power.  Bishops,  Presiding  Elders,  Preachers,  Discipline  and  all,  must 
bow  submissively — "no  proposal  of  accommodation,"  is  to  be  received  from 
any  quarter,  which  does  not  recognize  the  Constitution  as  supreme,  or 
which  itifringes  the  rules  of  their  adoptio!).  The  assumption  of  a  right  to 
legislate  for  the  Church,  contrary  to  her  establish. ;d  economy,  must  be  ac- 
knowledged— a  constitution  directly  subversive  of  the  long  admitted  and 
well  defined  provisions  and  rules  of  our  Discipline  must  be  sustained,  vt 
war,  pitiless,  imnatural  war,  is  proclaimed  agaiest  the  Church  by  her  ov.n 
children.  Was  a  procedure  so  irrregular,  so  disruptive  of  every  tie  that 
ought  to  bind  a  Methodist,  to  be  suffered  without  rebuke? 

These  very  men,  when  received  into  the  fellowship  of  the  Church,  de- 
clared that  they  had  read,  that  they  approved  the  Discipline,  and  that  they 


35 

>rcre  icillingto  b3  governed  bv  it.  Iftlioy  had  grown  wiser;  it"  they  were 
dissatisfiad  with  our  mode  of  ma.iagemr'at  as  a  Cliurch,  why  not  retire  be- 
yoad  its  control?  Is  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  recognize  this 
self-constitufed  legislature,  and  b.^nd  her  rules,  approved  as  they  are  by  the 
Avise  and  good,  and  consecrated  by  success,  and  the  testimony  of  cxpe- 
perience,  to  their  surreptitious  creation?  The  Discipline  was  bom  of  wi- 
ser heads  than  theirs,  or  ours,  and  has  shown  itjolf  worthy  of  its  authors 
too  long,  to  be  now  sacrihced  as  an  offering  to  appease  the  discontent  of 
(rfciv  ax2)lriiig  fault -Jimlers. 

'^Some  years  since,  a  Lady  of  this  diy,  rciiarhablc  for  Iter  benevolence,  had 
made  application  to  the  Rev.  W.  ])[.  Kennedy,  icho  was  at  that  time  preacher 
in  charge  of  the  station,  for  divine  scrince  to  be  performed  in  the  Poor  House 
of  this  city,  as  a  co:npcnsa'ion  for  which,  she  promised  to  give  for  the  support 
of  the  ministry — One  Hundred  Dollars  annually."  The  gentlemen  are 
%oise  on  this  subject  overmuch.  Mrs.  (xregorie  did  not  make  any  suth  ap- 
I)lication.  The  preachers  on  this  station  hud  commenced  ])erforming  di- 
vine service  there  long  before  the  iiitervicw  between  Mr.  K.  and  Mrs.  G. 
She  was  apprised  of  this,  and  wished  to  contribute  to  the  support  of  the 
ministry  here,  on  account  of  services  rendered  there,  by  the  donation  of  one 
hundred  dollars  yearly;  but  was  informed  that  the  ministry  in  this  place  were 
provided  for  by  the  Church.  She  however  made  the  donation  year  by  year, 
and  with  her  consent  the  whole  amount  was  sent  to  the  Annual  Conference 
to  assist  in  paying  the  delicient  preachers.  In  her  Will,  without  any  sort 
of  reference  either  to  the  service  to  be  |)erformed  in  the  Poor  House,  or  to 
the  transmission  of  the  money  to  the  Annual  Conferciice,  ai\d  without  any 
restriction  to  the  dividends  arising  fro?u  this  stock,  she  demised  20  shares  in 
the  State  Bank,  of  this  City,  in  the  following  words — "I  give  and  bequeath 
20  shares  which  I  have  in  the  State  Hank  to  the  Elders  and  Trustees  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  this  city  for  the  vse  and  benefit  of  the  min- 
istry of  said  Church."  One  of  the  charges  preferred  against  the  Trustees 
is  founded  upon  the  sale  of  these  shares,  to  assist  in  paying  a  debt  incurred 
by  the  erection  of  a  Parsonage  ^for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  ministers  on 
this  station.  On  this  point  we  give  the  concurring  opinions  of  the  Attorney 
General,  Mr.  Smith,  and  Mr.  Petigru,  as  expressed  in  a  letter  to  JMr.  Ken- 
ncdv. 

May  28th,  1834. 

Reverend  and  Dear  Sir', 

You  recjuest  my  opinion  upon  the  following  clause  in  the  Will 
of  Mrs.  Mary  Christianna  Gregorio: — "I  give  and  bequeath  twenty  shares 
I  have  m  the  State  liank,  to  the  Eiders  and  Trustees  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  of  this  city,  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  Ministry  of 
said  Church."  The  questions  arising  tVom  this  clause,  upon  which  you 
desire  information,  are  the  folloM'ing: 

1.  Is  this  donation  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Metho- 
(list  Episcopal  Church  -'of  this  city,"'  or  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Methodist 
Church  generally? 

2.  Have  the  Elders  and  Tnistccs  a  control  over  the  stock,  or  over  the 
dividends  only? 

'^.  Can  thf  Elders  an<i  Trustees  sell  the  stock,  and  convert  the  nmnev 
into  aM\  other  investment,  without  the  authoritv  of  the  Court  of  (.'han- 
.-nrv' 


36 

4.  Can  ihc  Elders  and  Trustee?,  if  authorized  to  sell  the  stock,  "pply 
the  money  resulting  from  tho  sale,  to  the  erection  of  a  Parsonage,  "for  the 
use  and  benefit  of  the  Ministry  of  said  Church?" 

1.  Oil  th-;  first  point,  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  difficult  to  ascerfiun  the 
intention  of  the  testator.  If  she  had  designed,  that  this  legacy  should  be 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Church,  generally,  she  would  scarcely 
have  vested  it  in  the  hiuids  of  those  whose  authority  and  duties  were 
entirely  local.  The  presunipiion  is,  that  she  intended  to  create  a  trust, 
within  the  administrative  powers  of  those  in  whom  she  had  iiivested  it. 
On  any  other  construction,  indeed,  this  legacy  would  be  void  for  inirer- 
tainty.  Who  are  the  Ministry  of  the  Methodist  Church,  generally?  This 
denomination  of  Chrisiians  exists  in  Europe,  us  well  as  America — in 
every  State  in  the  Union,  as  well  as  in  South-Carolina — and  their  Ministry 
are  co-existent  and  co-extensive  with  their  denomination.  Shall  the  Me- 
thodi.*t  Ministry  then  over  the  whole  world  take  the  legacy?  ((r  shall  it  be 
confined  to  the  use  of  those  in  the  United  States,  or  in  the  State  of'South- 
Carolina?  Th(!  words  "said  Church"  hi  the  clause,  refers,  I  think,  to 
"thi-  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  this  city" — and  limits  the  legacy  to 
the  Ministry  in  the  city  of  Charleston. 

2.  Upon  the  second  point,  I  will  only  remark,  that  the  use  and  benefit 
bestowed,  is  not  of  the  dividends  or  profits  of  the  stock,  but  of  the  stock 
itself;  and  although  the  Elders  ai.d  Trustees  may,  if  they  please,  use  oi  ly 
the  profits  arising  from  the  stock,  I  suppose,  that  tlie  stock  itself,  without 
bei;;g  co'isumed,  may  as  righifuily  bo  api)lied  to  the  benefit  of  the  Ministry, 
as  the  dividends  arising  from  it. 

'  3.  On  the  third  point,  I  am  of  opinion,  that  the  Elders  and  Trustees 
have  the  power  to  sell  the  stock,  and  io  reinvest  it  in  any  other  May,  pro- 
vided the  reii.vesfment  is  made  bo!ia  fide,  and  under  <i  sound  discretion 
'•for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  Ministry."  This  would  not  be  my  opinion, 
if  the  Trustees  had  merely  a  control  over  the  dividends  and  j)rofits — such, 
for  instance,  as  the  case  of  an  executor,  with  respect  to  stock  belonging 
to  an  estate — or  of  a  guardian,  with  respect  to  stock  belonging  to  his 
ward.  Ill  these  cases,  the  trnstee  can  only  touch  the  profits,  alid  the  capi- 
tal can  only  be  changed  by  the  sanction  of  a  Court  of  Chancery.  2  Atk. 
121.  Harrison  vs.  Harrison,  2  Bro.  C.  C.  653.  Bostick  vs.  Blakely,  1 
Vess  Jur.  297.  Powles  vs.  Hubert,  4  Vess  Jur.  497.  Long  vs.  Stewart,  5 
Vess.  Jur.  800. — and  in  such  cases,  the  ces  tui  que  trust  is  entitled  to 
have  the  stock  restored  to  hiin,  or  to  have  the  moiiey  produced.  But  the 
case  arising  under  Mis.  Gregorit;'s  Will,  is  entirely  ditlerent  from  these 
cases.  Here,  tho  stock  itself  is  given,  and  is  to  be  "applied  to  the  use  and 
beiUjfit  of  the  Mii-istry.  The  manner  or  way  of  applying  it,  is  not  pre- 
scribed or  restricted.  The  legal  estate  in  the  slock  is  vested  in  the  Trus- 
tees, with  a  single  restriction  as  to  its  u.tc — it  shall  be  for  the  use  and  bene- 
fit of  th'j  Ministry.  If  an  executor  has  money  in  his^  hands  belonging  to 
an  esfiiie,  jii''  he  vesfs  it  in  stock,  may  he  not  sell  the  stock,  and  reinvest  it, 
if  he  deems  fit?  Clearly  he  may;  and  so  here,  the  Elders  and  Trustees 
may  s-  II  the  stock  and  apply  it  to  ''the  use  and  beiiefit  of  the  Ministry," 
under  ihe  exercise  of  a  prndent  and  sound  discretion.  For  negligence  or 
carelessness  i.i  dischargi  g  their  tnist,  the  Trustees  may  be  amenable  in  a 
Court  of  Chancery;  bui  its  intervention  is  not  necessary  to  authorize  them. 
to  sill  the  stock. 


4.  It"  thi  ;ibave  views  bo  correct,  is  the  vesting  of  the  stock  in  a  parson- 
age for  the  habitation  of  the  Ministry,  such  an  appiicalion  of  it,  for  their 
'•Uoe  and  hciiefit,"  as  the  law  v.ill  authorize.  The  three  great  necessities 
of  men,  arc  food,  clofhi  ig  a;ui  habitation.  It  ai)pcary  to  me  to  be  imraate- 
rial  to  the  relief  of  which  of  these  necessities  theTnistees  apply  the  stock, 
provided  the  capital  is  not  destroyed  in  the  ajiplication.  If  vested  in  a 
building  without  extravagaiice  or  waste,  for  the  coiitinual  and  impartial 
use  of  the  Miuislry  in  Charleston,  it  would  be  difficult  to  conceive  a  more 
advantageous  method  of  appljing  the  stock  for  their  "use  and  benefit." 
The  capital,  by  such  an  investment,  would  not  be  destroyed,  and  its  interest 
and  profits  (from  the  rent  such  an  investment  would  save)  may,  strictly 
speakiiig,  bo  said  to  be  continually  used  by  the  Ministry.  My  opinion 
therefore  is,  that  the  Elders  and  Trustees  may  invest  the  stock  in  erecting, 
or  in  contributiiig  to  erect,  a  Parsonage  for  the  habiiatioii  of  the  Ministry  in 
Charleston. 

Believe  me,  Reverend  Sir,  vour  obedient  servant, 

R.  BARNWELL  SMITH. 

Rev.  W.  M.  Kenaedy,  Preacher  in  Charge 

of  the  Methodist  E.  Church  in  Charleston. 

I  have  read  the  above,  and  concur  fully  in  it.  I  should  not  suppose 
there  could  be  two  opiiiious  on  the  subject. 

.1.  L.  TETIGRU. 
August  2iih,  1834.   ' 

"The  Board  of  Trustees  of  crery  circuit  or  slat  ion  shall  be  responsible  to 
the  Quarterly  Conference  of  said.  Circuit  or  station.^''  (See  Dis.  page  1G7.) 
It  is  nccesssary  to  keep  this  clause  in  mind,  in  order  to  understand  the  case 
nou;  to  be  explaiied. 

The  Charges  preferred  against  the  Trustees,  were  presented  to  Mr.  K. 
Avith  the  request  that  he  would  bring  them  to  trial  not  as  Trustees,  but  as 
private  members.  I^Ir.  K.  replied  thnt  he  could  not  try  them  for  their  of- 
ficial acts  as  individuals,  and  that  as  Trustees  they  were  responsible  to  the 
Quarterly  Conference..  The  Preacher  in  Charge  could  not  have  adopted 
any  other  course  without  rendering  himself  liable  to  impeachnjcnt  for  a  vi- 
olation of  Discipliiie. 

The  accusers  acquiesced  iu  this  view  of  the  subject.  (Although  it  may 
seem  u:iiraportanf,  yet  we  would  say,  Mr.  K.  did  not  pre.ieribe  the  ^formal- 
ities^' which  we  are  told  attended  the  presentation  of  the  charges  to  the 
Quarti:rly  Coiiference.) 

Three  or  four  days  previous  to  the  sittiijg  of  the  Quarterly  Conference, 
a  committee  waited  upon  the  preacher  ia  charge,  and  delivered  into  his 
hands  a  set  of  charges  to  be  ha;ided  by  him  to  the  Trustees,  in  order,  (as 
oneof  the  committee  remarked)  that  they  might  be  ready  for  trial.  The 
charges  are  as  follows:* — 

*  With  regard  to  the  charges  and  specilicatious  above,  we  would  remark,  that  there  is  a 
play  upon  words  just  lor  the  unrighteous  nudtipiication  of  coniplair.ts.  On  the  first  charge, 
it  is  sutiicientto  say,  that  there  is  on  the  Journal  of  the  Quarterly  Conference,  a  resolu- 
tion authorizing  the  Trustees  to  purchase  and  to  sell  property.  Charge  2nd,  "Breach  of 
faith."  We  have  before  proved  that  the  Trustees  never  made  a  promise  to  Bishop  Em- 
ory, consequently  never  violated  their  faith. 


38 

Charges  and  .Specilications  against  Samuel  J.  Wagner.  Abel  McKcc. 
Henry  Muckenfuss,  Samuel  Seyle,  (Icorge  Just,  (icorge  Clirietzburg,  and 
William  Bird,  acting  as  Trustees  ot"  the  Methodist  Ej)iscoi)al  Church  of 
Charleston,  South-Carolina. 

CnAK(;i:  1st. — IJrcarh  of  trust  and  contempt  for  the  Quarterly  ^Meeting 
Conference. 

Specijicat'ion  1st.  That  they  the  said  Sam'lJ.  Wagner,  Ahcl  M'Kee,  Henry 
Muckenfuss,  Sam*!  Seyle,  Geo.  Just,  (tco.  Chrietzhurg  and  Wm.  Bird, 
acting  as  Trustees  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Charleston,  did, 
some  time  vithiiithe  last  year,  .sell  to  Charles  Clark,  (a  colored  man)  fif- 
teen feet  front  and ■  feet  deep  of  land,  being  part  of  the  original   lot  of 

ground  on  which  the  Methodist  Parsonage  now  stands,  coiitrary  to  the  letter 
and  spirit  of  tiic  Discipline,  and  of  the  (\i^eA  creating  the  trust  in  this  case. 

Sperifiralion  2nd.  Disposing  of  three  hundred  dollars,  bequeathed  by 
Mrs.  Elizabeth  King  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  aforesaid,  without 
having  first  a|)plicd  to  the  Quarterly  Meeting  Conference  for  instruction,  in 
accordance  with  their  own  by-laws — thereby  violating  their  own  regula- 
tions, treating  the  Quarterly  Conference  with  contempt,  and  virtually  deny- 
ing the  right  of  control  by  the  Conference,  or  any  other  known  authority 
in  the  Church. 

Charge  2!)d. — Breach  of  Faith. 

Specijication.  That  they,  the  said  Samuel  J.  AVagncr,  Abel  McKce, 
Henry  Muckenfuss,  Samuel  Seyle,  George  Just,  George  Chrietzhurg  and 
William  Bird,  acting  as  Trustees  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
Charleston,  did,  sometime  in  the  |)resent  year,  perform  sundry  acts  of  liigh 
importance  to  the  interests  of  the  Church,  such  as  pledging  and  selling  cer- 
tain shares  of  the  State  Bank,  contrary  to  the  intention  of  the  deceased 
donor,  Mrs,  Gregorie,  and  in  violation  of  the  plighted  faith  of  the  Church 
to  Bishop  Emorv,  that  no  official  act  of  a  temporal  nature  (ordinary  du- 
ties excepted)  should  be  performed,  u;iiil  the  decision  of  the  Bishops  on 
the  questions  referred  to  them  was  known  here,  (the  decisions  not  having 
been  known  at  the  time.) 

CiiARGK  3d. — Immorality  and  unchristian  conduct. 

Specijication  1st.  That  they  the  said  Samuel  J.  Wagner,  Abel  McKee, 
Henry  Muckenfuss,  Samuel  Seyle,  George  Just,  George  Chrietzhurg  and 
Wm.  Bird,  acting  as  Trustees  aforesaid,  did,  some  time  in  the  month  of 
April  or  May  last,  sell  ten  shares  of  State  Bank  Stock,  ostensibly  for  the 
payment  of  debts  due  by  the  Church,  thereby  violating  a  trust  (the  said 
shares  having  been  demised  by  the  late  Mrs.  GregOric,  to  Trustees  in  trust 
for  a  specified  object,  viz.  the  benefit  or  support  of  the  ministry  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Charleston. 

The  pledge  tliat  no  oflicial  act  should  be  prrfoniied,  (ordinary  duties  excepted,)  until 
the  decision  of  the  Bishops  arrived,  was  ne\er  heard  of  until  about  the  time  the  gentle- 
men found  it  necessary  for  the  promotion  of  a  particular  object,  to  charge  the  Trustees — 
that  is  nearly  or  quite  4  months  after  it  was  >-aid  to  have  been  given,  'liiis,  independent 
of  positive  proof  to  the  contrarv,  is  a  suspicious  circumstance.  Ah  to  the  sale  of  the 
JSiiarcs,  we  refer  our  readers  to  the  opinions  of  .Messrs.  Smith  and  Petigni.  The  third 
charge  is  only  a  corollary  from  the  other  two.  It  derives  its  existence  from  them,  and 
without  them  if  is  not.  To  show  liovv  recklessly  these  men  deal  out  their'  accusations, 
wc  would  sav  that  two  or  three  of  the  individuals  named  in  the  charges,  were  not  mem- 
liirrK  nftlic  Board  at  nit,  at  the  time  the  acts  recited,  were  prrformcd. 


39 

Specificaiion  2nd.  That  they  the  said  Samuel  J.  Wagnev,  Abel  McKee, 
llcnry  Muckcnfuss,  Samuel  Seyle,  Gcorfrc  Just,  George  Chrietzburg  and 
William  Bird,  acting  as  Trustees  aforesaid,  did,  some  time  in  the  present 
year,  pledge  ten  shares  of  State  Bank  Stock,  on  a  loan  of  money,  and  did 
sell  ten  other  shares  of  the  same  stock,  being  twenty  shares  demised  by 
the  said  Mrs.  Gregoric,  to  Trustees  in  trust,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Minis- 
ters of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  this  city,  and  known  to  be  de- 
signed as  a  permanent  fund  to  aid  in  the  support  of  the  said  Ministers, 
and  to  secure  the  continued  weekly  perfornunice  of  religious  services  in  the 
Poor-House  of  this  city,  th(>reby  perverting  specifiecl  uses  and  benefits, 
contemning  the  obligation  of  trusts,  abstracting  from  the  resources  of  the 
Stewards'  fund,  and  inflicting  a  deep  injury  on  the  character  and  interests 
of  the  Society,  by  destroying  public  confidence  in  them. 

Signed,  .TAMES  E.  WALKER,  Chairman, 

Samuel  Kingmax,  Srcretari;. 
Charleston,  June  14///,  isiu. 

I  do  hereby  certify  the  foregoing  to  bo  a  true  extract  from  the  minutes  of 
the  meeting  held  on  the  7th  .Tune. 

SAMUEL  KINGMAN,  Secretary. 

A  day  or  two  after  the  Committee  waited  upon  the  preacher,  we  heard, 
accidentally,  that  they  had  been  appointed  by  a  meeting,  to  prosecute  the 
charges.  They  did  not  so  announce  themselves  to  the  preacher,  but  sim- 
ply as  a  committee  to  deliver  the  charges  to  him,  in  order  that  he  might 
linnd  them  to  the  Trustees. 

When  the  Conterence  came  on,  Mr.  Kennedy  presented  the  paper  to  the 
President,  Mr.  Bass,  telling  him,  at  the  same  time,  how*  it  came  into  his 
possession.  The  President  inquired  at  once,  who  are  the  accusers?  He 
was  asked,  "if  the  charges  were  not  signed?"  He  replied,  two  names  are 
appended  to  the  paper,  the  one  as  Chairman,  the  other  as  Secretary  of  a. 
meeting — but  who  composed  the  meeting?  Mr.  Honour  replied,  that  "the 
paper  stated  the  character  of  the  meeting;"  and  then  asked,  "if  there  was 
no  resolution  annexed  to  the  charges?"  The  President  replied.  No,  Sir. 
No  preamble?  inquired  Mr.  H.  No,  Sir,  rejoined  the  President — no  pre- 
amble — no  resolution!  exclaimed  Mr.  H.  And  when  assured  there  was 
none,  he  sat  down  blank  and  confounded.  The  paj)er  purported  nothi;  g  at 
all,  except  that  there  had  been  a  meeting,  at  which  a  Chairman  and  Se- 
cretary were  appointed,  and  charges  against  the  Trustees  prepared.  And 
now  for  this  omission — this  oversight  of  the  authors  of  the  charges — the 
preachers  are  represented  as  leagued  together  to  uphold  the  Trustees  in 
defiance  of  form  and  law  and  all  righteousness.  The  President  of  the 
Conference  did  not  say,  that  "7J0  man  not  entitled  to  a  .seat  in  that  Confer, 
ence,  should  enter  the  room.'"  But  he  did  say,  that  as  there  was  neither 
preamble  or  resolution  attached  to  the  pajjcr,  authorizing  the  presentation 
of  the  charges;  and  as  the  Discipline  required  that  the  "accused  and  ac- 
cuser should  be  brought  face  to  face,"  the  members  of  that  meeting  should 
sign  the  paper.  .  About  this  time  Mr.  Poyas  rose  and  moved,  that  Major 
Laval  be  called  in.  saying,  "  he  will  tell  you — he  will  tell  you  who  the  ac 
cusers  are;"  but  the  majority  of  the  Conference  feeling  no  particular  need, 
of  Major  LavaVs  counsel,  and  thinking  themselves  perfectly  competent  to 
transact  their  own  business,  paid  no  attention  to  the  motion.     Mr.  Piercfe 


40 

then  moved  that  the  moinbors  of  the  Quarterly  Confcrciico.  \\\nt  were  pro- 
sent  at  the  meeting  where  the  cliarpes  originated,  shouhl  come  forward  and 
sign  the  paper,  or  eome  out  in  their  responsible  characters.  The  motion 
irritated  one  or  two  into  confession  that  thev  were  present;  but  one  of 
them  at  least  va>i  made  to  .sif  down,  as  thnufihllessh/  leflinu  out  a  skcket 
which  his  more  acute  copartners  iroiild  ifiilingli/  hcej>  from  t/ic  hnoulejge  of 
the  Conference. 

It  is  mentioned  in  the  enumeration  (if  errors  and  sins  committed  by  us, 
that  the  accused  '■'■were  suffered  to  retain  their  seats,  and  speak  and  role  and 
malie  motions.  NVIiut  |)ossihIe  ohjcetion  cfiuld  (here  be  to  this?  Ilud  thev 
not  a  riglit  to  defend  themselccs?  They  did  not  vote,  nor  (!i<i  they  ma!;e 
any  motion  that  we  remember.  They  certainly  were  entitled  to  take  part 
in  the  discussion  on  thtar  own  case.  The  gentlemen  themselves  seem- 
ed to  think  they  had  a  right  to  speak,  and  objrct  too,  when  their  own  trial 
came  on;  and,  at  any  rate,  they  used  it  almost  to  the  exclusion  of  ever y  one 
else.  Why  should  the  saine  privilege  be  denied  the  Trustees?  "Be  just." 
and  then,  "fear  not." 

A  motion  made  by  one  preacher  and  seconded  by  another  which  the 
President  decided  without  inquiring  the  sense  ofthe  Conference,  is  brought 
to  view  as  another  item  in  the  list  of  offenct^s.  But  like  many  others  with- 
out  a  reason.  It  was  the  undoubted  right  ofthe  President  to  decide  wheth- 
er  the  paper  was  informal,  or  not.  The  object  ofthe  motion  was  to  elicit 
a  distinct  opinion.  The  chairman  had  once  already  given  his  opinion  in 
the  case.  But  the  author  ofthe  motion  supposing  either  that  he  was  not 
heard,  or  that  he  had  been  misu.idcrsiood,  (for,  if  heard  and  understood,  the 
objectors  very  impolitely,  and,  contrary  to  all  order,  contiimed  a  heated  and 
profitless  debate,)  and  wishing  to  have  it  settled  at  once:  moved  that  the 
Chair  decide  distinctly  on  the  point  before  us.  The  motion  was  not  infen- 
ded  for,  nor  did  it  belong  to  the  Conference.  Their  approval,  or  disap])ro. 
val,  had  nothing  to  dn  with  the  case — if  they  had  approved,  it  would  havti 
just  been  saying  that  the  President  should  do,  what  he  had  an  indubitable 
right  to  do,  without  their  approval.  In  all  deliberative  bodies,  who,  we 
would  inquire,  decides  questions  of  order — if  not  the  Chairman? 

Mr.  Honour  then  arose,  (the  gentlemen,  say,  cooly  and  deliberately — we 
say,  angrily,)  and  tore  the  paper  in  part,  and  said  that  he  ^^would  assuinc  the 
responsibility;^^  and  asked  if  "</tfi  charges  icoidd  be  received  as  coming  from 
him?"  He  was  answered  in  the  negative.  The  "why  and  the  wherefore" 
were  obvious,  //e  was  not  authorised  by  f/is  meeting  to  asstune  the  re- 
sponsibility,  nor  at  that  stage  ofthe  affair,  did  his  pro])osition  at  all  alter  or 
remove  the  objections  in  the  case.  The  gentleman  being  defeated  again; 
begged  leave  to  retire  and  was  immediately  followed  by  ten  or  eleven  oth- 
ers;  all  moving  in  the  utmost  disorder  and  confusion.  Let  us  now  throw  a 
little  light  on  this  extraordinary  affair. 

It  was  believed  at  the  time,  and  is  fully  ascertained  now,  that  the  meeting 
was  composed  of  the  corporation  membfsrs.  In  this  meeting  the  charges 
originated — they  were  read — approved,  and  their  presentation  authorized 
by  all  present.  Who,  then,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,'  were  the  accu- 
sers? In  all  good  conscience,  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  man — tJie  members 
of  the  meeting.  Will  they  tell  us  that  they  simply  meant  by  their  votes  and 
resolutions — ^that  if  these  things  were  so,  they  ought  to  be  investigated? — . 
Did  they  appoint  a  committee  to    prepare  and  prefer  charges  while  they 


41 

were  utterly  ignorant  of  the  evidence  by  which  thnse  charges  were  to  be 
supported?  Is  it  rehgion — is  it  common  justice  to  have  made  allegations 
agaiiist  the  Trustees,  their  brethren  in  Christ,  atTccting  not  only  their  offi- 
cial, but  their  moral  character,  without  a  sum  of  kuoM  ledge,  inducing  a 
thorough  conviction  of  their  guilt?  They  did  accuse,  actually  believing 
ihom  guillj/  or  obstinately  determined  lo  eject  them  from  othce,  if  possible, 
right  or  icrong,  and  it  may  be  trom  membership  too.  In  either  case,  they 
were  not  proper  voters. 

Is  it  not  a  little  surprising,  that  these  very  men,  who  complain  so  much 
about  trick  and  management,  should  be  themselves  the  i^rriest  adepts  in  cun- 
ningl  What  was  the  appointment  of  the  at"ores;iid  Coniniittfe  but  :i  partij 
artijficel  Why  did  they  not  select  those  who  were  members  of  the  Confe- 
rence? 'I'he  plain  intention  of  the  arrangement,  was  to  keep  the  ranks  of 
thair  party  unbroken,  and  so  be  enabled  to  muster  their  whole  strength  to 
the  work,  of  the  uUer  and  irreversible  condemnation  of  the  Trustees.  Why 
did  they  call  a  meeting  at  all,  if  it  was  not  to  keep  up,  and  strengthen  the 
organized  opposition  which  has  so  long  embroiled  the  Church?  There  was 
no  necessity  for  it.  Two  or  three  memb(>rs  or  even  one  might  have  drawn 
up  the  charges,  and  preferred  them,  and  there  would  have  been  no  objec 
tion — and  the  mrmbers  of  the  Coisference,  who  belonged  to  the  corpora- 
tion party,  might  have  saved  themselves,  from  the  guilt  they  haveincurred, 
and  that  they  ought  to  feel  for  having  thus  cunningly  atf«  nipted  to  put  down 
th!?ir  really  u.iotieading  brethren.  By  the  irregnhir  course  they  adopted 
they  sought,  and  w<Hild  have  secunnl  a  dangerous  advaiUage  of  the  Trus- 
tees — and  we  shoidd  have  gone  down  to  our  graves  with  the  reproach  of 
innocent  me'i  upon  us,  if  we  had  not  macb  an  effort  to  rescue  them  from 
the  5/iarp*  which  had  been  laid  tor  them.  Neither  the  preachers  nor  the 
Trustees,  wished  to  evade  an  investigation.  Why  then  it  may  be  asked, 
were  they  not  tried?  We  answer,  first,  because  of  the  informality  of  the 
paper  in  its  original  foim,  and  secondly,  because  their  accusers  refused  to 
sign  the  papor,  or  to  assume  the  responsibility  in  thijir  proper  characters  of 
substantiating  the  charges.  The  gentlemen  themselves  are  the  authors  of 
all  the  dijiculties  which  hindered  the  investigation.  They  called  the  meet- 
ing, a  id  tJiey  prepared  the  charges,  and  they  omitted  the  Preamble,  and 
they  forgot  the  resolution  directi.g  the  appointment  of  a  committee,  and  they 
refus;!d  to  sign  the  pj'.per,  and  they  deserted  the  Conference.  All  the  Bish- 
ops  of  the  M.  E.  Church — the  Presiding  Elder  of  the  District,  and  all  the 
Preachers  on  the  station  could  not  have  prevei.ted  the  trial,  if  the  charges 
had  been  presented  legally,  without  subjecting  themselves  to  impeachment. 
If  then  Me,  (the  P.  E.  or  Preachers)  have  errtd,  let  us  be  charged. 

This  Quarterly  Conference  we  are  told,  '■'■demnnstralid  beyond  the  shadow 
of  a  doubt,  thnt  all  power  is  placed,  in  the  hands  of  the  nwmtry  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcop  tJ  Church,  and  that  the  membership  have  no  rights  at  all.  when 
put  in  competition  with  the  will  of  the  preachers. ^^  Let  us  review  this  won- 
derful demo  jstradoH.  What  power  did  ih:^  Preachers  (exercise,  that  was 
not  ex,crcisedby  every  member  of  theConf  ivnce?  Unfortunately  for  the 
assertion,  the  "dcmoistration"  embrac(  s  theTrustees,  as  well  as  the  Preach- 
ers — the  Class-leaders,  as  well  as  the  Trustees.  We  were  all  members  of 
the  same  body,  invested  with  the  same  rights.  Suffrage  in  every  case 
M'asihe  prerojrative  of  all.  and  of  luich.  The  preachfrs.  it  is  true,  did  take 
(j 


42 

lilt*  uu}>:l  |Ji*uiiiiiieiit  part  in  the  controversy,  but  not  because  of'any  exclusive 
riphls.  If  the  defeat  of"  the  advocates  ot' an  unrighteous  cause,  by  a  state- 
ment of  facts,  and  fair  reasoning  upon  the  Discipline — is  proof,  "dcmonstra- 
iion''^  of  the  proposition  above  we  have  yet  to  learn  it. 

It  is  a  most  outrageous  offence,  that  the  preacher  in  charge  should  liave 
called  the  Church  together  after  the  adjournment  of  Conference,  to  impart 
some  information  concerning  the  acts  and  doings  of  the  'J'rustees.  Hear 
the  reasons  for  this  ai)|)ointmenf.  'I'he  acts  of  the  Hoard  had  given  much 
oflence  to  some  of  the  members.  Many  garl)led — exaggerated  reports 
were  in  circulation.  They  were  most  industriously  handled  to  cast  discre- 
dit upon  the  Trustees,  and  thus  to  keep  up  the  wretched  excitement  which 
we  had  so  long  dt'plored.  It  had  been  expected,  that  a  full  and  fair  invcs- 
tigation  before  the  Conference,  woid<l  have  corrected  these  errors — but  this 
was  defeated  by  the  chicanery  and  injustice  of  their  accusers.  Moreover, 
the  whole  Church,  new  side  and  old  side,  had  an  interest  in  the  matter; 
and  it  was  hoped,  that  a  plain  impartial  statement  of  facts,  might  allay  the 
tumult  that  raged  around.  We  charitably  believed,  that  the  Corporation 
members  had  rather  be  convinced,  that  they  were  misluken,  than  that  the 
Trustees  were  really  guilty  of  the  thi:.'gs  alleged  against  them.  For  wc 
knew  then,  as  well  as  we  know  now,  that  the  schismatics,  in  their  excited 
feeling,  had  sutiered  impressions  to  ripen  inXo  Joels,  that  reports,  no  mat- 
ter  by  whom  ^tarted,  or  by  w  hom  supported,  had  been  received  as  iritths — 
that  appearances,  dim  and  misty,  without  any  sort  of  examiiiation,  had 
given  rise  to  opinions  and  to  actions,  as  if  they  were  clear,  visible,  tangible 
realities. 

We  drew  up  a  statement  from  the  books  of  the  Board  of  those  particu- 
lar acts,  which  had  been  so  grossly  perverted  to  mislead  the  people.  It 
•was  a  plain  unvorijishcd  statement.  It  was  due  to  oxrsklves,  for  we  had 
been  told  agai:i  and  again  to  our  faces,  that  we  were  leagued  with  the 
Trustees,  to  uphold  ihem  right  or  wrong.  We  should  certainly  have  been 
lacking  in  a  proper  regard  to  ourselves  as  men,  and  especially  as  Ministers, 
if  we  had  not,  when  the  means  were  so  completely  in  our  hands,  have 
rescued  our  characters  from  the  gross  imputatioiis  of  thq  schismatics. 
The  Trust( '  s  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  They  never  saw  thr  paper  until 
tiie  evening  on  which  it  was  r<  ad.  It  was  not  intended  as  a  defence  of  the 
Trustees.  0:!e  of  the  prominent  charg'.  s  Wiis  not  alluded  to  at  all — 
ntmiely,  "breach  of  faith;"  and  the  rest  W(!re  referred  to,  not  as  charges 
which  had  been  prefr  rred,  but  as  reports  which  were  in  common  and  wide 
circulation  to  the  injury  of  the  Church,  and  which,  as  Pastors  of  the  So- 
ciety here,  we  were  bound  to  set  riglu.  The  i^K  .1  that  it  was  a  defence  of 
the  Trustees,  is  held  forth  01  ly  to  hide  h  sober  truth — th:it  these  geiitle- 
mcn  were  angered  that  the  members  should  be  disnhused  ol'  the  impres- 
sions made  by  their  louse  ai;d  unguarded  saying,-.  Suppose  it  was  a  de- 
fence, what //ooJ  man  \\ou\ A  object  16  tht- vii  dication  of  his  neighbour's 
character — if  he  had  been  honestly,  though  falsely  accused?  But  preju- 
dice had  so  blighte<; — withered — kiii«-d  ;•!!  broiherlv  ieeliug-r-tiiat  it  was 
outrageous,  in  their  eslimation,  for  the  Trustees  to  appear  less  odious  than 
they  had  represented  them.  Too  full  of  1  rejutlrce  to  admit  conviction — 
too  proud  to  acknowledge  error,  and  determined  to  compass  ii  certain  object, 
which  the  proceedings  of  the  evening  seemed  to  put  a  little  farther  beyoad 
their  reach — vexation  and  rage  took  full  possession. 


43 

With  ail  impoliteness  and  effrontery  vliich  liave  no  apology  and  no  par- 
nllel.  Mr.  Kennedy  was  repeatedly  interrupted  in  the  performance  of  a 
Christian  and  ministerial  duty,  by  intermedkrs  with  other  mens'  business. 
To  every  inquiry  he  replied,  "this  is  not  the  time  to  answer — another  time, 
In'ethren,  another  time — if  I  give  permission  to  o!;e,  I  must  to  another,  and 
to  all — and  this  is  not  the  time  or  the  place  for  debate."  But  the  gentle- 
men very  dexterously  ir)tered,  that  when  he  liad  fiinshcd,  he  meant  that 
••they  should  b?.  heard."  We  ihi'.ik  this  inference  has  been  drawn  since 
the  meeting — probably  about  the  time  the  pamphJet  was  rcritten.  Mr.  Ken- 
nedy made  one  statement  very  unfortunately  for  such  an  inference — 
namely,  that  when  he  concluded,  Mr.  Dunwody  would  address  and  close 
the  meeting.  But  this  fact  would  have  proved  rather  an  incumbrance  to 
the  inference,  and  so  has  been  omitted,  or  perhaps  it  \vsisfo7-gotten.  When 
Mr.  Kennedy  ended  his  commuoicatioa,  and  Mr.  Duuwody,  whose,  grey 
hairs,  independent  of  his  characler  for  piety  and  sense,  should  have  com- 
manded respect,  rose  to  perform  the  part  assigr.ed  him,  he  was  rudely 
stopped  by  Major  Laval,  who,  regardless  of  place — of  character— of  reli- 
gion— and  of  order,  began  a  tirade  of  abuso  and  inveclivc — ^tslRed  about 
outrage  a:id  injustice,  and  would  have  proceeded  to,  wo  know  not  what. 
But  as  we  felt  tio  particular  desire  to  hear  ourselves  abused — and.  did  not 
think  eve7i  the  Major  any  more  entitled  to  audience  than  his  coadjutors,  ho 
was  reminded  that  others  iiad  been  refused  the  liberty  to  speak,  and  that  it 
could  not  be  gra;itcd  him.  However,  with  a  peculiar  delicacy  of  feeling, 
he  continued  his  harangue.  As  om*  exhortation  had  failed,  we  concluded 
to  try  THE  POWER  OF  SONG.  Mr.  DunM'ody  was  urged  to  sing,  "Like 
begets  like,"  and  so  this  extraordinary  effort  gave  rise  to  what  may  be 
considered  this  extraordinary  measure.  The  device  succeeded  to  perfec- 
tion. The  orator  ceased  and  retired,  followed  by  his  party.  His  attempt 
to  speak  was  an  inadmissible  interference  with  a-sothcr  man's  duties — an 
u  dieard  of  violation  of  order  in  our  Society  me  tings.  The  Cimrch  was 
not  under  Major  Laval's  control — ha  did  not  coll  the  meeting — nor  was  he 
entitled  to  peculiar  privileges.  If  he  had  been  suffered  to  proceed,  wc 
should  have  been  accessary  to  converting  the  Church  of  Cod  hito  an  arena 
for  religious  gladiators.  Wc  -chose  the  least  of  two  evils:  and  who  can 
conden?!  us,  bvit  the  disappointed,  speaker  and  his  adherents? 

Not  long  after  the  new  Board  of  Trustees  (as  they  style  themselves)  met 
and  appointed  a  Committee  to  wait  upon  ih<,'  Preacher  in  Charge,  and  to 
deliver  tiie  following  paper: 

"At  a  meeting  of  th^^  Board  of  Tru-si^  s  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Ch  urch,  h-ld  at  the  re-sidenco  of  the  Chairman,  Wednesday  evening,  July 
23d.  1834,  the  f  .lj..wi:ig  Resolutions  were  adopted: 

"Resolved,  That  Wm.  Kirkwood,  Wni.  G.  Mood  and  J.  H.  Honour,  be  a 
Com.ninee  to  wait  upon  the  Preacher  in  Charge,  and  request  him  to  call  a 
ganeral  meeting  "oF  the  Church,  male  and  female,  at  some  early  day,  for 
the  purpose  of  laying  before  them  a  full  statement  of  the  difficulties  which 
n  jw  exis'  among  us,  a  id  the  causes  of  their  origin;  and  on  his  refusal  to 
call  such  in^.'ti.ig,  that  tbs  Committee  be  instructed  to  take  such  measures 
as  they  may  deem  proper  to  procure  one. 

'^Resolved.  'J'hat  the  Committee  be  instructed  to  inform  the  Piefiflicr.  tbat 
we  propose  the  tbilowing  plan  for  conducting  the  meeting: 


14 

'•TliL*  charges  preferred  against  the  persons  claiming  to  act  as  Trustees, 
ri.ider  the  appointment  of  the  Preacher,  be  read,  and  (he  proof  in  support 
of  them  l)rought  forward: — that  the  accused  be  perniittcd  to  nialio  their 
defenc',  and  thiit  the  accusers  rejoin — certain  named  persons  to  speak  on 
each  side,  and  no  o'her  he  allowed  to  interfere. 
'•Krum  llie  Minutes, 

•J.  H.  HONOUR,  Secretary.'' 

In  the  account  the  gentlemen  give  of  this  paper,  they  omit  the  instnic- 
tions  given  to  the  Conimitiee.  Why  so?  Every  one  "that  docth  truth 
conicth  to  the  light."  If  the  Preacher  refused  to  call  a  Church  nu  cting, 
the  Committee  were  authorized  "to  take  such  mejisures  as  thry  7iiifiht 
deem  expedient,  to  procure  one."  Is  this  Discipline/  It  was  the  unceas- 
ing cry  of  these  men,  we  love  the  Discipline — we  do  not  intend  to  violate 
it.  What  means  this  assumption  of  power?  Who,  acconiing  to  Metho- 
dist  economy,  has  the  right  to  call  and  superiiitend  Church  mceti.gs,  but 
the  Minister  in  Charge?  But,  forsooth,  we  are  Trustees,  and  ire  mean  to 
have  a  Mew  order  of  things;  and  so  the  Committee  f}iust  call  the  C'hnrch 
together.  But  this  was  inserted  in  the  paper  (for  they  knew  the  Preacher 
Mould  not  grant  a  reques-t  so  unreasonable — so  uiuiecessary)  oidy  to 
frighten  him  into  compliaice.  It  was  omitted  in  the  pami'bUt,  h  st  the 
community  should  ask,  "why  did  not  the  Committee  call  the  meeting?  ai.d 
they  should  be  com|)elledto  answer,  "it  would  have  been  a  palpuble  viola, 
tion  of  discipline.''     ^*Therc  is  policy  in  war." 

The  Preachers  finding  that  the  schismatics  were  taking  higher  and 
higher  ground  at  every  ste|),  aiid  they  having  declined  to  w.iit  aiiv  loi  ger 
for  the  decision  of  the  Bisliops  on  the  case,  concluded  to  m;;ke  one  more 
effort  to  arr«'st  them  in  their  ill-advised  career.  Accordiigly,  sei  t  th<  m 
nearlv  word  for  word  the  following  paper,  as  a  decision — as  a  private  re- 
proof— and  as  an  entreaty  to  cease  from  their  disorganizing  movcn)enls: 

^'Dear  Brethren, 

"Having  received  a  conrmujication  from  you,  purjiorfing  to 
b'j  the  transactions  of  a  meotitig  of  scvrral  m-.\le  nu-mbers  of  ihe.Melhodist 
E.  Church  in  Charleston,  wherein  it  is  Resolced,  ihat  said  menjbcrs  are  no 
longer  bou.id  by  a  promise  made  to  Bishoj)  Emory — That  they  will  not 
hereafter  agree  to  any  proposal  of  accommodation,  come  from  what  quar- 
ter it  may,  that  is  not  based  upon  the  Constitution  and  By-laws  of  the  Cor- 
poration adopted — That  they  will  not  any  longer  sulfcr  their  rights  as  mem- 
b -rs  of  the  M  thodist  Episcopal  Church  to  be  tram|>lednpon,  or  action  on 
their  part  suspended  by  unmeaning  oflers  of  acconnnodatioi. — But  that  they 
will  pursue  all  proper  ni(;thods,  whether  in  church,  in  law ,  or  ecjuitv,  as 
may  appear  to  them  most  expedient,  6cv.  Provided  the  same  be  not  a  j)alj)a- 
ble  violation  of  Disci|)line. 

"Now,  therefore,  permit  me,  tos  ay  to  you,  and  through  you  to  the  several 
mrmbers  com|)osing  said  mef-ting — that  since  it  is  ma;:ifest  bv  your  Res- 
olutions, that  you  no  longer  look  to  tiie  counsel  and  d;'cisi(»n  of  the  B;sh. 
oos  on  the  matter  in  controversy — You  should  of  course  as  members  of  the 
Methodist  E.  Church  in  Charleston,  abide  the  decision  of  the  Preacher  in 
Charge,  on  points  of  Discipline,  until  said  decision  can  be  set  aside,  by  the 
pow^r  that  hold«<  him  responsible  for  his  administration,     in   this  view  of 


45 

the  subject,  I  judge  it  my  duty  to  furnish  you  with  a  decision  ou  the  case. 
In  which,  (I  am  happy  to  say,)  I  have  the  hearty  concurrence  of  my  wor- 
thy colleagues  Brothers  Martin  and  Pierce.  Suffer  me  first  to  say,  tliat 
the  Coastitutio.i  ai*.d  By-hnvs  adopted  by  you  on  the  12th  Nov.  last,  are 
not  ooly  independent  of,  and  cojitrary  to,  the  proviso,  of  the  Discipline  un- 
der  which  yon  claim  authority  for  your  acts  (iiiasmuch  as  that  applies  only 
Avhen  a  new  Board  is  to  be  created.  But  the  power  of  the  Gen.  Conference 
is  assumed  in  that  you  declare  the  Trustees  ripso'.sible  (iiot  t(^  ihe  Q.  Con. 
as  the  Discipline  enjoins,)  but  to  the  mile  members  of  the  Chinch  in  their 
corporate  capacity.  The  power  to  alter,  amend,  repeal,  ^c.  bcloigs  exclu- 
sively to  the  delegates  of  the  several  A iumal  Coatereuces,  in  Gen.  Confe- 
rence assf^Tibled.  The  economy  of  our  Ch'irch,  has  ordained,  and  recog- 
nizes no  oth:'r  Legislative  body.  In  conformity  with  these  views,  my  de- 
cision is — That  your  organization  on  the  V2'A\  Nov.  last,  and  acts  under 
and  in  pursuance  of  that  organization — whether  on  the  2nd  Dec.  last,  or 
subsequcatly — As  a  palpable  violation  of  our  Discipline,  and  not  to  he  toler- 
ated in  memhers  of  our  Church.  This,  therefore,  is,  to  admonish  and  en- 
treat you,  I  trust  la  the  fear  of  God  and  in  Brotherly  affection,  to  desist 
from  the  course  you  have  taken.  And  am  I  not  authorized  to  expect  this 
from  the  proviso  connected  with  the  resolutions  to  which  I  have  refered. — 
As  to  thj  eiid  you  propose  with  regard  to  the  a[)poi;tmcnt  of  Trustees,  if 
brought  about  accordi:)g  to  the  provisions  of  the  Discipline  for  its  amend- 
ment, &c.  we  have  nothing  to  ob)(  ct.  But  we  do  hope  you  will  see  that 
the  grouid  you  hive  taken,  canm)t  b  j  maintained  without  sacrificing  the  Dis- 
cipline.  Yuu  have  left  yourselves  room  for  an  honorable  retreat.  Avail 
yourselves  of  it.  Spare  the  Church — spare  us — for  we  watch  for  your 
souls  as  thev  who  must  give  account. 

WM.  M.  KENNEDY,  Prear/jcrm  CAar^f. 
WM.  MARTIN,  >^„ 

GEO.  F.  PIERCE,    \  ^^"^"S"es. 
''Metlml'ist  Parsonage,  Charleston,  July  2Z,  1834." 

This  affectionate  communication  Avas  rewarded  with  contempt.  This 
was  the  last  effort  of  iiearlv  twelve  month's  forbearance  on  the  part  of  the 
Church.  We  wish  it  to  be  remembered,  that  this  was  intended  as  a  test 
of  their  willingness  to  be  governed  by  the  Discipline;  and  if  it  had  suc- 
ceeded in  bringi'.ig  thcin  to  a  pause,  the  past  would  have  been  forgiven  and 
forgotten.  They  had  already,  it  is  true,  trampled  upon  the  Discipline — of 
this  we  forewarned  ihem,  and  told  them  that  their  course,  if  persisted  in, 
could  not  be  tolerated.  We  determiiicd  beforehand,  if  this  plan  failed,  to 
charge  tliem  wiih  "Disobedience  to  the  order  and  Discipline  of  the 
(Jhurch."  This  determination  was  formed  several  days  before  the  suit  in 
Law  was  inslituted,  or  even  heard  of.  The  very  day  after  the  reception  of" 
the  paper  above,  in  the  most  reckless  opposition  to,  and  the  most  determin- 
ed CO  itqTii)t  for  (ho  co.istituled  authorities  of  the  Church,  the  gentlemen  pro- 
ceeded to  levy  upon  the  property  of  one  of  the  tenants  of  the  Trustees.  In 
accordance  with  the  viiiws  given  above,  the  following  charg(^  and  the  several 
specifications  of  it,  were  handed  to  each  on  JMo.iday,  the  28th  July: 

"Charce. — Disobedience  to  the  order  and  Discipline  of  the  Church. 
^^Specification  1st.     Takiig  a  part  in  a  meeting,  calling  itself  tlie  Church, 
in  its  corporate  capacity,  and   which  assumes  the  right  to  do  aAvay  at  plea- 


46 

sure  the  order  and  modns  of  management  prescribed  by  the  Discipline,  to 
remove  from  office  the  Tnistees:  to  fill  their  places;  cliaiigc  their  responsi- 
bility; <Scc. 

'^'■Upecification  liiui.  Recei\  ing  appointment  as  Trustees  under  the  assum- 
ed authority  of  said  meeting,  thus  organizing  a  Board  for  the  transaction  of 
the  business  of  the  Church,  in  opposition  to  the  Board  appouited  under,  and 
acknowledged  by  the  Discipline. 

^^Specification  3rd.  After  a  written  avowal  of  your  determination  not  to 
perform  any  acts  that  would  be  a  palpable  violation  of  Disciphnc,  a:id  after 
having  received  from  the  Preacher  in  Charge  a  Dtrisiou,  declariig  the 
course  you  have  adopted,  to  be  a  palpable  violation  ot  Di.^cipline,  you  have 
gone  to  law  with  the  Trustees,  by  levving  on  the  property  of  one  of  their 
Tenants,  thus  giving  evidence  of  a  determination  to  pursue  your  own  course 
in  defiance  of  the  constituted  aulhoriti/  of  the  Church. 

W.M.  y\.'KkSSEl)\,  Preacher  in  charee. 
\VM.  MAKTliN. 
G.  F.  PIERCK. 

"Methodist  Parsonage,  July  28th,  1834." 

Will  the  community  receive  the  ridiculous  statement  made  in  the  pam- 
phlet  as  true,  namely,  that  we  were  so  anxious  to  have  the  accused  expel- 
led,  that  we  cited  them  to  appear  at  the  Parsonage,  at  9  o'clock,  A.  M. 
Tuesday,  29th,  when  we  must  have  ki.own  very  well,  according  to  their 
account,  thai  the  trial  bei'ore  the  Magistrate,  would  come  on  at  10  the  same 
day?  One  hour  to  begin,  continue  aid  fii  ish  an  investigation,  that  we  ex- 
pected  would  consume  hours,  if  not  a  day!  We  chose  9,  A.  M.  intention- 
ally, that  we  might  have  time.  We  had  been  inlbrmed,  that  the  suit  before 
the  Magistrate,  came  on  Wednesday,  30th;  and  we  still  believe,  that  this 
was  the^r«<  appointment.  The  change  as  to  the  day,  was  eflected  by 
the  accused  themselves.  Wc  yielded  patiently  to  the  "insidious  attempt" 
they  made  to  defeat  the  Church  trial,  and  prepared  citations  for  4.  P.  M. 
In  the  mean  time  we  received  the  following  letter: 

"Rev.  W.  M.  Kex-nedy. 

"Sir, 

"The  undersigned  have  your  notification  to  attend  at  the  Par- 
sonage, to-morrow,  at  9  o'clock,  to  respond  to  a  charge.  You  are  per- 
fectly aware,  that  we  are  business  men,  and  that  you  could  not  have  cho- 
sen a  more  inconvenient  hour;  an  hour,  too,  that  is  unprecedpnted  in  the 
annals  of  the  history  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Charleston, 
and  one  at  which  we  cannot  possibly  attep.d;  in  addition  to  which,  the  no- 
tice is  quite  too  short.  From  these  several  considerations,  wc  shall  expect 
that  the  time  will  be  changed  to  an  hour  post  meridian,  at  some  I'uture  day. 
You  will  also  understand,  that  we  claim  the  right  guaranteed  to  us  by  the 
Discipline  of  trial  before  the  Society.  (See  Dis.  pp.  21  and  87.  ed.  182S.) 
An  immediate  reply  is  re(juested. 

"^'ory  respectfully." . 

We  just  remark,  that  in  going  down  to  the  City-Hall,  betw  ccn  9  and  10 
o'clock,  A.  i\r.  astonishing  to  fell,  we  saw  these'  "husiiicfis  men.  who  could 
lint  poftaihly  atleiid.'"  a1  fho   I^H-simagc.  all  tnieniployVd  and  \vai(ing  lor  the 


47 

opening  of  the  Court.     On  the  demand  tor  a   trial  before  the  Society,  we 
Mill  speak  after  a  while. 

It  is  said,  that  the  Trustees  made  themselves  defendants  in  the  case. 
Not  so.  The  act  of  the  prosecutors  made  the  Trustees  the  defendants. 
They  have  admitted,  that  the  questioii  before  the  Court  was,  as  to  the  right 
of  property.  It  is  plain,  that  the  right  did  not  vest  in  Mr.  Lyng — he  was 
but  the  tenant.  The  fact  is,  it  the  case  had  been  properly  worded,  it  would 
have  been — the  schismatics  plaintiffs  against  the  Trustees  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  to  whom,  aiid  to  their  successors  in  office,  the  property 
Mas  demised  in  trust  for  the  Church.  When  the  case  came  up  in  Court, 
the  Miigistrate,  after  a  little  discussion,  declared  that  he  had  no  jurisdic- 
tion over  the  question  iiivolved.  But  as  the  prosecutors  and  their  attor- 
ney seemed  to  thi;ik  ditlercntly,  he  postponed  a  tinal  decision,  until  the 
next  day,  in  order  that  he  might  investigate  the  validity  of  his  opinion.  He 
did  so,  and  stated  next  moriiing  that  he  had  seen  no  reason  to  change  his 
vicM's,  and  so  the  case  Mas  dismissed.  For  tiieir  failure  here,  the  preachers 
received  censure  and  abuse  in  no  small  measure, as  it' we  had  some  century 
ago,  perhaps  more  or  less,  enacted  the  laM^  Mith  a  prophetic  vieM,  to  their 
pai'ticular  discomfiture.  VVher.  the  court  adjourned  on  Tuesday,  wc  cited 
them  to  trial  at  4  o'clock  P.  M.  the  same  day. 

The  Committee  chosen  by  the  preacher,  consisted  of  the  following  indi- 
viduals— eleveu  in  number.  William  Wightman,  Sen.  Thomas  McMillan, 
.Tohn  DeBoM-,  Sen.  Thomas  Surtis,  James  Burns,  Thomas  P  Williams, 
Frederick  Bi.rroMs,  Daniel  Richbourg,  Samuel  B.  Webber,  Francis  B. 
Moore,  Jacob  C.  Miller. 

We  here  say,  that  Me  selected  the  most  impartial,  inotrensive  men  that 
Me  could  find.  They  m ere  all  sober, grave, considerate,  exper'eixed  men. 
Tm  o  of  them  are  comparative  strangers,  and  never  had  any  connection  with 
the  difficulty.  One  of  them  known  to  be  intimate  Mi;h  some  of  the  accused. 
]\lr.  DcBoM'  has  a  son  and  other  tamil\-  relations  M'ho  belong  to  the  party; 
Mr.  Miller  has  three  sons  on  that  side  of  the  controversy.  Were  these  in- 
dividuals likely  to  be  viiidictivc  and  cruel?  Does  a  choice  of  such  men 
look  hke  packing  a  jury?  True,  some  of  them  did  not  attend,  but  surely 
this  M'as  not  our  fault.  We  chose  them  and  tirged  them  to  attend.  None  of 
them,  that  we  kucM',  had  ever  made  any  decided  expression  of  their  opinion 
on  the  controversy, — with  one  exception,  and  he  M-as  chosen  to  fill  up  the 
Committee.  Much  to  our  regret,  only  seven  of  the  number  summoned,  at- 
tended, namely. — Wm.  Wightman,  John  DeBow,  Sen.  James  Purns,  Fred- 
erick BurroMs,  Samuel  B.  Webber,  Thomas  Surtis,  Thomas  McMillan. 

The  portion  of  the  Disciplir.e,  page  87,  referred  to  in  the  letter  of  the 
accused  to  Mr.  K.  reads  thus:*  "Hom-  shall  an  accused  member  be  brought 
to  trial?  Ans.  Before  the  Society  of  Mhich  he  is  a  niembc^r,  or  a  select 
NUMBER  OK  TUEM."  It  is  ucccssary  to  state  for  the  information  of  those 
unacquainted  Mith  our  economy,  that  on  our  circuits  Avhere  the  societies 
are  small,  it  is  customary  to  bring  an  accused  member  before  the  wliole  so- 

*  The  Discipline  as  refered  to  by  the  accused,  pages  20  and  21,  reads,  ''■The  Gen- 
eral Conference  shall  have  full  powers  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  our 
Church,  under  the  folloioing  limitations  and  restrictions,^'  see  p.  20,  ed.  1832, 
after  specifying  several,  it  says, — "neither  shall  they  do  auiay  the  friviles^es  of  our 
members  of  trial  before  the  society,  or  by  a  select  number  ofthein,"  see  page 
21,  ed.  1882. 


48 

ciety,  (evnii  then  there  is  no  rule  to  require  it,)  but  in  our  station?,  where 
the  societies  are  generally  larger,  it  is  NEVER  done.  The  manifest  i«. 
convenience  of  the  thing  is  the  reason.  Moreover,  if  one  nieinhcr  had  u 
right  to  demand  a  trial  before  the  whole  society  on  any  charge  however 
important,  any  other  member  might  do  it  on  any  charge  however  trivial. 
If  indeed  such  a  right  were  vested  in  the  members  of  the  Church,  it  would 
be  a  difficult,  if  not  aw  impossible  matter  to  try,  suspend  or  expel  any  mem- 
ber for  any  oH'encc.  Sn|)pose  the  rule  to  say  "the  whole  society,"  then  if 
the  whole  society  were  not  present,  (a  thing  altogether  out  of  the  question 
in  a  place  of  this  size.)  the  accused  might  demur  in  some  cases  with  a  con- 
siderable show  of  justice,  and  thus  elude  at  any  time  the  penalties  of  the 
Discipline.  For  if  he  were  tried  before  a  part  only,  it  would  be  a  com- 
mittee at  last,  and  so  fall  short  of  the  rule.  Suppose  a  societv  to  consist 
of  200  members — a  njember  is  charged — the  society  is  called  together — 
only  l.iO  attend — on  the  division  90  are  against,  60  for  him — the  accused 
objects  and  pleads  the  rule.  Would  not  the  plea  be  a  good  one?  The 
preacher  calls  the  Church  together  again — a  larger  or  a  smaller  number 
attend — the  same  difficulty  is  started — again  ar.d  again  the  same  scene  is 
acted  over,  and  at  last  the  culprit,  the  reproach  of  the  church,  escapes. 

The  framers  of  the  Discipline  foreseeing  these  difficulties,  (with  many 
others  that  might  be  mentioned — some  of  which  will  appear  in  the  farther 
explanation  of  this  case)  wisely  clothed  the  Preacher  in  Charge  with  a 
discretionary  power.  It  would  hardly  be  regard,  d  wise  policy  in  the  State 
Legislature  to  enact  that  every  murderer  should  be  tried  by  the  whole  IState, 
or  everj  by  the  whole  district,  touui  or  city  in  \\  hich  he  resided.  No;  he  is 
tried  by  a  jury  (a  committee  if  you  please)  of  his  peers,  and  who  objects 
to  the  arrangement?  True,  he  has  the  right  to  challenge  his  jurors,  and  so 
may  the  accused  in  the  Methodist  Church,  if  he  can  show  any  sufficient 
reason.  The  objections  urged  by  the  accused  in  the  present  case,  were  but 
the  petulent  words  of  nic:)  v.  ho  wen;  co:iseious  that  the  day  ol'  justice  had 
come  and  found  them  without  an  excuse.  Laws  are  made  tor  the  bad  and 
not  for  the  good.  No  man  that  lives  a  Methodist — a  Christian — ever  has 
any  reason  to  complain  of  the  strictness  of  the  Discipline,  or  the  power  of 
the  preachers.  None  complain  but  those  who  by  their  sinful  life  or  their 
revolutionary  movements,  subjrct  themselves  to  trial  and  expulsion.  If  there 
ever  was  a  case  that  exhibited  most  luminously  the  wisdom  of  our  discipli- 
nary policy,  it  is  the  one  before  us. 

'riic  gentlfimen  tell  us  that  they  were  perfectly  willing  the  trial  should 
have  taken  place  -'i;!  the  church,  with  open  doors."  Why  were  they  will- 
ing? Will  the  conmiuiiity  believe  that  when  these  men  were  demanding  a 
trial  before  the  society,  one  of  them  acttudly  had  a  paper  in  his  jochet  sign- 
ed  by  oxk  iiundkk.d  and  eioiitkcn  members  who  Imd  solemnly  boundthem- 
seliics  to  supp.rt  the  accused,  and  thi.t  they  hud  connnittn  s  travi-rsing  the 
city  north,  south,  east  ai.d  west,  to  procure  sig;,atun;s?  This  was  packing 
a  jury  with  a  witness.  If  they  did  not  get  a  majority  to  sign  the  paper,  it 
was  not  their  f  tult.     They  showed  a  willing  mind. 

The  prcachr  did  art  as  chairman;  but  in  that  capacity  he  was  only  the 
agent  of  the  Discipline — w  hich  itself  defines  the  crime  and  the  penalty. 
Ho  had  no  vote  iii  making  up  the  decision  of  the  committee,  nor  could  he 
kave  any.  The  committee  in  this  case,  as  always,  was  composed  of  an 
odd  number.     It  is  the  prerogative  of  the  committee,  according  to  the  Dis- 


43 

cipline,  to  aay  guilty  er  n»t  guilty; — if  they  say  giJilty,  the  preachei'liiia  no 
alternative  but  to  declare  the  penalty  annexed  to  the  crime  by  the  rule,  er 
to  refer  the  case  to  the  Quarterly  Conference.  The  accused,  if  dissath' 
fied,  ham  the  right  of  appeal. 

In  reference  to  the  "portentous  roll"  we  would  make  a  remark.  When 
the  demand  for  a  trial  before  the  society  was  refused,  Mr.  Honour  drew 
from  his  pocket  several  sheets  of  paper  attached  to  each  other  by  wafers, 
and  the  signatures  evidently  so  arranged  as  to  make  a  delusive  impression, 
(for  many  of  them  were  an  inch  apart)  and  flirting  it  out  as  a  sort  of  alarm 
FLA'*,  declaring  that  near  two  hundred  names  were  on  it,  gave  us  to  under- 
stand that  if  we  expelled  them,  (the  accused)  all  mIio  had  signed  the  paper 
would  withdraw.  Mr.  Pierce  then  observed  in  words  not  precisely  re- 
membered, but  to  this  effect,  that  "the  exhibition  of  that  portentous  roll 
would  not  intimidate  us,  or  frighten  us  from  our  conscientious  judgment  of 
discipline  and  duty — that  we  would  proceed  with  the  trial  if  we  did  not 
leave  a  dozen  members  in  the  church  in  Charleston."  The  plain  meaning 
of  the  manoeuvre  was  to  deter  us  from  farther  proceedings.  To  overawe 
us  by  bold  unqualified  assertions  that  the  majority  of  the  members  approv- 
ed their  course  and  would  share  their  fate,  was  the  unvarying  expedient  of 
these  men.  When  their  ingenuity  in  reasoning  was  exhausted,  and  incon. 
trovertible  arguments  and  facts  were  set  in  order  before  them,  they  supplied 
the  defect  of  the  one,  and  leaped  over  the  obstructions  of  the  other,  with 
the  triumphant  exclamation,  "we  have  the  majority.'"  as  if  mmibers  sancti- 
fied  error  and  screened  them  from  the  censure  of  the  Discipline.  But 
were  the  majority  in  their  favor?  Let  the  number  of  the  seceders  speak — 
145  or  50  out  of  650.  It  was,  the  gentlem(ui  think,  presumption  in  the 
Preacher  in  Charge,  to  decide  on  the  controversy  contrary  to  the  opinion  of 
"a  large  number  of  the  members,  supported  by  high  authority,"  as  we  are 
told  they  were.  They  are  ignorant,  perhaps,  that  the  Preacher  was  sup* 
ported  by  the  highest  authority.  Independent  of  authority,  the  Preacher  not 
only  has  the  advantage  of  as  mature  ajudgment,  as  belongs  to  any  one  of  this 
"large  number  of  members,"  but  of  a  long  experience  in  the  administra- 
tion  of  Discipline.  As  the  authors  of  the  pamphlet  seem  hard  put  to  it  to 
find  an  instance  of  presumptio-i,  we  will  kindly  supply  their  lack.  The 
caption  of  the  "portentous  roll,"  reads  thus: 

"We,  the  undersigned,  believe  that  the  brethren  who  have  been  cited  to  trial 
for  performing  certain  acts  as  Trustees  of  the  Corporation  of  the  Metliodist 
Episcopal  Church,  have  acted  in  perfect  accordance  imth  the  Discipline: 
and  they  have  our  entire  support.  If,  therefore,  tli£se  brethren  are  expelled 
from  the  Church  for  these  acts,  you  will  consider  us  no  longer  members." 
Appciided  to  this,  were  the  names  of  men,  women — boys  and  girls.  Some 
of  these,  we  doubt  not,  know  not  what  an  Act  of  Incorporation  is — neither 
its  origin,  '\i»  object,  or  tlie  powers  it  confers.  They  know  not  how  a 
Board  of  Trustees  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  created  or  perpe- 
tuated. S  )rae  of  th-m  are  old  members  it  is  true,  and  to  these  we  accord 
the  respect  that  is  due;  but  we  do  not  surrender  to  them  our  right  of  inde- 
pendent thinking.  Some  of  the  signers  are  of  five  years  standing — othei's 
of  four,  three,  two — others  of  one,  a!;d  some  have  been  on  probation  only 
three  or  four  months.  And  these  assuming  an  arroga:  t  dictatorship  over 
the  regular  administrator  of  the  Discipline — as  if  their  opinions  were 
anthoritv  and  law,  sav  "wr    bemevj;"    thuS  aitd   90,   and   if  3*dti  dortt^ 


.30 

art   acrordinjr  to  i>\ir  judgment,  tee  will  quit  the  Church.     Is  uul  this  prc- 
siiinptiou  ("/yMO  <li.ri(")  i:i  vory  deed  and  truth? 

After  tlic  |)aper  and  the  signatures  were  prtsfcnU'd,  the  accused  kit  the 
room.  I)ut  Were  informed  as  they  retired,  that  the  trial  would  stdl  proceed. 
As  aufiiorily  lor  this,  sec  an  cxirart  froii)  the  Discipline  below.*  Major 
Lival  tlicui  called  on  all  to  bear  him  witness,  and  told  us,  (saying,  "we 
might  receive  it  as  a  threat,  for  hv  intended  it  as  a  threat;'')  that  if  we 
''proceeded  to  try  and  expel  them,''  we,  niiglit  expect  "to  appear  in  th«^ 
newspapers  and  CouruHouses  of  the  land."  To  this  vaporous  bravado  wo 
replied,  "very  well,  sir — jjroceed — we  are  ready  for  trial." 

The  Committee  tried  the  case,  and  six  {^*not  five'')  signed  a  verdict  of 
guilty.  The  seventh  said,  there  was  no  doubt  tliat  the  accused  had  viola- 
ted the  Discipline;  but  he  thought  we  ^'ought  to  bear  with  the  hoi/s,"  and 
so  refused  to  sign  the  verdict.  We  beg  leave  to  say,  that  "a  diHercnce  of 
opinion"  was  not  the  ground  of  expulsion;  but  rejieated  and  palpable  vio- 
lations of  the  Discipline.  They  were  wplcome  to  their  oi)inions,  if  they 
Mould  have  let  the  Discipline  alone. 

The  Periodicals  published  under  the  direction  of  the  General  Conference, 
are  referred  to  in  the  pamphlet,  and  were  presented  by  some  one  on  the 
day  of  trial.  We  would  simply  say,  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal 
i.s  not  the  Discipline;  nor  are  the  membsirs  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  under  any  obligation  to  receive  as  orthodox,  every  opinion  which 
the  editors  may  insert.  ^i'hey  are  under  authority  as  well  as  we. 
They  are  responsible  to  the  General  Conference  for  all  they  publish.  If 
Dr.  Bangs,  in  an  editorial  article,  had  denied  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  we  prei^ume  (he  geiitlemen  would  not  have  foit  themselves 
bound  to  tur/i  infidels.  But,  because  he  happened  to  say  something  that 
fell  in  with  their  mode  of  thi.iki  ig,  he  is  sovereign,  infallible  aulJiwily. 
(W^e  intend  no  disrespect  to  Dr.  B.  i:i  the  above.) 

But,  notwithstanding  the  gentlemen  called  meetings  and  dechiimed  upon 
the  corruption  of  the  Trustees,  and  the  injustice  of  the  Preachers,  and  per- 
Verted  the  plain  meani.ig  of  the  Discipline,  to  secure  the  support  of  the 
members;  and  although  Committees  were  appointed  to  go  from  house  to 
house  to  get  all  they  could  to  pledge  themselves,  for  tlieir  vindication,  yet 
with  this  zeal  in  making  prosilytes  on  their  part,  wo  can  show  most  clearly 
that  the  result  of  a  trial  before  the  Society,  would  have  be.en  just  the  same 
as  before  the  Committee.  To  make  the  case  more  apparent,  we  will. say, 
♦he  Society  consists  of  G50  members,  (though  there  arc  a  few  rnore.)  One 
hundred  and  fil\v,  we  will  say,  (though  not  quite  So.  irjqny)  as  provtn  by 
the  result,  coincided  with  ihnin  full;/  in  opinion.  Cwiseque;  tly,  "five  hun- 
dred against  them.  But,  we  will  alhjw  one  hundred  more  "tcj  agree  at  least 
that  they  ought  not  to  have  been  expelkd.  The,  result  would  still  hcive 
leen  their  condemnation — 400  against  2.j0.  .  Biii  of  courye  ih?  118  Avho 
had  given  their  verdict  already  in  writing,  would  not  huve  been  outitlcd  to 
Vote — they  would  have  been  set-aside. f     Besides  signing.tho  paper,  acon- 

'  "If  the  accused  perhon  evade  a  trial  by  absenting  himnelf  uftcr  a  sufficient 
notice  given  him,  and  the  circuinntatiees  of  the  accusation  he  atron^  find  pre- 
sumptive, let  him  be  esteemed  as  guilty,  and  be  accordingly  excluded.  (See  Dis. 
p.  90.  ed.  1832.)  '- 

t  The  gentlemen  seem  to  have  overlooked  litis  fact-  Thfey  knew  not,  that  thev  were 
digging  a  pit  for  themselves,  or  if  they  did,  tlicy  intended  to  avoid  it,  by  witholding  the 


51 

si(leral)lc  munbcr  of  them  were  in  the  same  couderanatioii — liable  to  the 
same  charge — and  would  have  been  expelled  but  for  their  secession.  Sub. 
tract  tiie  118  from  the  250,  and  the  case  would  have  stood  132  for  them, 
400  against  them.  Or,  even  on  a  more  liberal  and  altogether  unwarranted 
calculatio;i — namely,  allowing  them  350 — ihen  subtractiiig  the  118,  it 
would  leave  232  for  them,  and  300  against  them;  and  so  the  result  would 
have  been  their  cxi)ulsion.  Will  the  public  suffer  thcniseivcs  now  to  be 
imposed  upon  by  the  declarations  of  these  men  about  pariialify — "packed 
juries,"  and  "the  mockery  of  justice?"  We  speak  the  words  of  "truth 
and  soberness,"  when  we  say,  that  we  have  done  these  individuals  no 
wrong.  We  have  not  b?en  respecters  of  persons.  We  have  meted  out  a 
lardy  justice.  "Patience  had  her  perfect  work."  Our  difficulties  had  ar- 
rived  at  this  crisis,  either  the  economy  of  the  Church  must  have  been 
abandoned — the  claims  of  the  Discipline  outraged  with  impunity — a  com- 
bination of  disorganizers  legalized,  or  these  gentlemen  expelled.  We  love 
the  Discipline.  It  has  a  place  in  our  hearts.  We  have  vowed  to  keep  it, 
and  to  enforce  it.  What  then,  as  honest,  conscientious  men,  could  we 
have  done,  but  adopt  the  course  we  have  pursued?  We  have  acted  deli- 
berately, advisedly,  and  in  the  foar  of  God,  and  for  the  interests  of  the 
Church.  Our  motives  may  bc^  impugned;  but  with  us,  it  "is  a  very  small 
thing  to  be  judged  of  man's  judgment.'"     "He  \hdijndgeth  tis  is  the  Loi-d.''- 

The  complimentary  epithets  (with  which  the  last  p;!ge  of  the  pamphlet 
abounds)  of  arbitrary — -despot ie — aristocratic — Russian  Autocrat — Cham 
of  Tartary — arc  all  duly  appreciated.  We  have  paid  their  lull  value — an 
utter  ioflifference;  and  have  consigned  them  to  that  undisturbed,  repose. 
which  the  gentlemen  seem  so  ardently  to  desire  for  themselves,  in  that, 
the}'  ask  once  and  again  "to  be  let  alone." 

We  will  mention  here,  what  seems  to  us  a  little  extraordinary.  1st.  The 
property  owned  by  the  Jilethodist  'Episcopal  Church,  has  bsen  received 
through  individual  benefactions  and  intermeut  fees.  Tov/ards  her  per- 
manent  funds,  not  one  of  these  gentlemen  have  contributed  a  cent — ihev 
had  no  right  to  them,  or  to  their  proceeds,  except  in  virtue  of  their  relation 
to  the  ( 'hiirch  as  members.  Mon^over  a  large  portion  of  tlu  property 
was  bequeathed  to  the  Church  as  she  is  constituted  by  the  Discipline,  and 
came  of  course  legitimately  under  tlij  control  of  the  Trustees  as  appointe<l 
under  the  Discipline.  Indeed  it  was  willed  to  the  Trustees  and  their 
successfirs  in  office,  for  the  upo  and  benciit  of  the  Church  as  she  is  and 
not  into  the  hands  of  those  who  claim  the  exercise  of  corporate  powers; 
lor  the  use  of  the  Church  as  they  would  make  her.  But  these  men,  not  only 
attempt  to  gx^t  the  control  of  the  property  owned  by  the  Church  indepen- 
dently of  them,  and  without  any  thanks  to  tht  ir  liberality;  but  they  a't.  niDt 
itbylhc  enactment  of  rules  to  suit  themselves;  by  repealing  all  former 
modes  of  management  repugnant  \o\\v'  rules — in  a  word,  by  the  abrogation 
of  the  Discipline  in  every  particular  ihnx  would  conflict  with  the  bove  men- 
tioned attempt.  2rid.  The  last  Quarterly  Conference  "demonstrated"  that 
all  power  was  in  the  hands  of  the- ministry  of  the  M.  E.  Church;  proved 
that  Me  were  despots.  After  a  "demonstration"  which  left  not  a  "shadow 
rf  a  doubl"  could  they  have  neetfed  more  evidence?     Could  any  thing  be 

paper.  Doubtless  we  should  not  have  heard  it  from  tliciii,  if  ihoir  request  for  a  trial  he- 
fore  the  society  had  been  granted.  VVeliad.  however,  received  intelligence  of  tlie  meet- 
ing arid  its  proceedings. 


52 

ch-'iULi-  than  such  a  ••(Icuionsliatiuu?"  Should  \vc  not  h:ive  been  justilietl  in 
fhiiikiiig  that  these  men  so  patriotic,  and  ciiivalrous,  and  republican,  and 
]turo,  Would  have  at  once  severed  their  connection  with  such  a  govern- 
nient?  Would  tiiey  not  have  feared  to  rouse  the  thunders  of  a  throne  so 
tremendous  in  its  power — so  omnipotent  m  U.s  wilP.  Was  it  not  exceeding. 
Iv'adventurous  to  dare  a  ministry  so  puissant  by  their  coiitumacious  oppo- 
sition.'  Has  oppression  only  felt  intolerable  since  their  expulsion?  Or  did 
thev  love  despotism  so  well  that  nothing  short  of  this  last  resort  coK\\y\  force 
thtin  from  its  communion?  We  certaitdy  could  not  have  kept  tluin  in  the 
V\\\\xc\\,i>oiccrful  as  we  are,  if  they  had  been  disposed  to  withdra\\.  Why 
then  did  they  not  leave?  The  distant  hope  of  ejecting  the  Trustees  from 
office  and  getting  into  their  place,  gilded  their  chains  with  its  brightness, 
and  thev  forgot  the  heaviness  of  their  bondage  in  the  splendor  of  their  pros- 
pects. The  idea  of  being  Trustees  uiider  the  authority  of  an  independent 
constitution,  dazzled  their  fancy,  and  the  glory  of  that  day,  when  the  Disci- 
pline should  be  immolated  and  tin;  triumphant  corporators  Jo  as  they  ftleas- 
cd,  inspired  them  with  fortitude  for  what  (we  suppose  they  thought)  the 
//r/e/" endurance  of  their  monstrous  wrongs  It  was  not  until  they  were  foil- 
ed  at  law — cut  off  from  the  possibility  of  success,  and  expelled  the  Church, 
that  this  hideous  despotism  looked  so  menacingly  upon  their  ^'inalienable 
rights.^^  Tyranny  could  be  endured  while  the  Genius  of  the  Corporation 
whispered  soothingly  o{  future  freedom — while  there  was  a  chance  for 
power,  and  hope  bid  these  oppressed  and  trampled  subjects  "be  of  good  cour- 
age," all  W'as  tolerable,  but  these  gone,  they  bid  '^a  final  farewell  to  the 
Church"  that  is,  being  interpreted,  what  the  ^^demmistration"  and  the  love  of 
liberty  failed  to  do,  their  expulsion  has  done. 

Once  more.  We  are  told  that  the  coiiduct  of  the  "Preachers  and  official 
members  in  going  from  house  to  house,  to  induce  those  who  have  seceded  to  re- 
turn, merits  the  severest  reprehension."  Our  oidy  difficulty  here  is,  we  the 
preachers;  (we  cannot  say  as  to  the  official  members,)  have  done  no  such 
tiling;  hut  whether  we  art;  not  the  more  guilty  on  that  account  is  a  ((uestion 
Ave  feel  very  much  incliaed  to  decide  in  the  affirmative.  We  ought  to  have 
sought  the  wandering  diligi-ntly,  especially  those  who  were  persuaded  to 
secede.  We  hope  the  geiitlcmen  will  excuse  us  for  ditiering  with  them  in 
opinion,  for  we  must  say  we  think  it  would  have  been  very  "becoming"  in 
lis  to  have  left  the  ninety  and  nine  who  were  safe  in  the  fold  and  to  have 
go.ie  forth  even  from  "house  to  house"  to  seek  the  lost  ones — who  we  verily 
believe  were  enticed  away. 

'-Hare  not  the  preachers  declared  that  the  Almighty  had  come  into  the 
Church  and  winnowed  the  chaff  from  the  wheat]"  We  answer,  no.  It  is 
reported  that  one  of  th<;  preachers  made  this  offensive  remark  hi  a  society 
ineetiiig.  He  upon  whom  it  is  charged  utterly  denies  it.  He  has  no  re- 
colloctlo!!  of  having  made  it  himself,  and  on  inquiry  of  many  who  were  pre- 
8e.;t,  who  u  .hesitatingly  say,  they  heard  no  such  observation,  he  is  confirm- 
ed i  I  the  bi  luf that  he  did  not.  Besides  it  is  very  improbable,  from  the 
fact,  that  he  rose  to  speak  with  the  determination  not  to  say  any  thing  that 
could  offend — that  he  did  not  believe  the  seceders  to  be  chalT,  for  many 
valuable  members  are  amoiig  them,  and  that  he  did  exhort  the  members  to 
mourn  rather  than  rejoice  in  the  departure  of  thpsc  who  but  a  few  days  be- 
fon;,  were  brethren  in  the  same  Church  with  our  selves.  He  M'ould  hard- 
i  ^  M.fV'-'  Vvffn  c''  hirotisistent  its  ti)  exhort  the  people  t*  meurn  the  separation 


^  -^ 


53 

of  the  chaff  from  the  wheat.     If  however  the  gentlemen  are  anxious  for  llie 
appellation,  we  certainly  have  no  right  to  object. 

The  request  "to  he  let  alone"  comes  with  a  very  bad  grace  from  men,  one 
of  whom  writes  to  one  ol'  our  own  people  a  letter  so  abusive  of  us  as  the  fol- 
lowing. 

"To  Mrs.  Church, 
"Madam, 

"I  was  informed  on  last  evening,  (hat  you  have  on  several  occasions 
lately,  spoken  evil  things  of  me.  I  know  your  zeal  in  defence  of  the  corrupt 
ministry  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  this  place,  and  their  road- 
jutors,  but  am  unwilling  to  believe  that  you  would  knowingly  injure  the 
character  of  any  one  without  a  cause.  I  have  not  heard  the  particulars  of 
what  you  said,  when  I  do,  I  shall  proceed  strictly  according  to  the  require- 
ment of  the  case.  It  is  hard  to  support  a  bad  cause.  You  are  on  the  side 
of  one  that  is  tottering  through  rottenness  at  its  root — it  must  fall — the  God 
of  truth  is  against  it,  and  who  can  resist  his  arm?  I  am  unwilling  to  bring 
the  per.alties  of  the  law  upon  vou,  but  if  I  am  urged  to  it.  the  blame  is  on 
your  own  head.  '  W.  LAVAL." 

A  Major,  thus  insulting  a  woman — a  itidowf  Oh!  CHIVALRY!  But 
suppose  the  lady  addressed,  did  say  evil  things  of  him — why  abuse  the 
preachers?  Why  drag  us  into  the  condemnation?  She  did  not  speak  by 
our  direction!  Corrupt  as  we  are,  such  infective  is  wholly  gratuitous,  and 
out  lof  place.  But  how  consistent,  to  rebuke  evil  speaking  by  evil  speak- 
ing; to  condemn  sin  by  sinning.  Reproof  comes  pointless  from  one  who 
"condemns  the  wrong  and  yet  the  wrong  pursues."  "Consistency  is  a  jewel." 

A  fact  somewhat  remarkable,  and  indicative  too,  of  the  spirit  and  disposi- 
tion of  the  men,  is,  that  the  preachers  have  oeen  abused  for  actions  they 
never  performed;  condemned  for  words  they  lever  uttered;  had  motives 
imputed  to  them,  which  under  the  circumstances,  it  was  impossible  for  them 
to  feel;  have  been  charged  with  the  faults  of  ohers  however  venial,  as  if 
they  had  been  our  own,  and  crimes  of  the  greatest  magnitude;  have  been 
held  responsible  for  all  their  impressions  though  but  the  offspring  of  a  suspi- 
cious temper,  or  the  mere  creatures  of  a  morbid  inagination;  have  been  de- 
nounced as  presumptuous,  and  arbitrary  for  having  explained  the  law,  and  en- 
treated  the  transgressors  "to  cease  to  do  evil;"  have  been  held  up  as  captives 
to  the  lust  of  power,  because  we  loved  the  economy  of  the  Church  more  than 
the  by-laws  adopted  by  the  corporators,  and  have  been  declared  tyrants^ 
despots,  because  by  the  enforcement  of  Discipline,  \\>,  put  down  a  turbulent 
faction  which  arrogated  to  itself  the  title  of  "<^  Church,"  and  required  an 
implicit  submission  to  all  its  measures,  the  Discipline  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing. 

The  gentlemen  are  very  much  disposed  to  class  thimselves  with  the  se- 
ceders,  and  the  declarations  they  make  as  to  the  reisons  of  their  "final 
farewell,"  would,  if  true,  justify  the  conclusion  that  <Acy  had  vnthdravm  be- 
cause their  "inalienable  rights"  were  jeopardized  by  the  aristocratic  minis- 
try  of  the  M.  E.  Church.  We  wish  to  disabuse  the  public  mind  of  any 
such  idea.  The  gentlemen  who  have  signed  the  pamphlet  "in  behalf  of 
the  (seceders  not)  members,"  were  expelled  on  a  charge  of  "disobedience 
to  the  order  and  discipline  of  the  Church."  It  was  not  the  power  of  the 
ministry  which  drove  them  away.     Their  forfeiture  of  membership  was 


54 

the  penalty  of  tlicir  ollciicci"-.  They  did  uot  leave  vohiiitarily.  Tht  y  eluiiji 
to  this  '■'dcs'potir'^  govenimeiit  until  its  ollicors,  in  obi'dience  to  its  hnvs, 
pronouiiff'd  llie  sentence  of  their  exrommunicalion.  They  wouhl  have  sa- 
crificed their  "inahenable  ri:/;hts,"  it'  reniaininy  niembers  cuukl  luive  dojie 
it,  it'  vr  wouki  liavc  j)ermitted  them.  Their  abomination  of  the  despotic 
govenuneiit  is  tlie  efikct  of  their  expulsion,  and  not  the  cause  of  anv 
thing — unless  if  be  the  confusion  of  (heir  ideas.  Look  at  their  hiconsis- 
lency.  Iii  one  sentence  they  would  have  their  readers  to  believe  (hat  the 
power  cont'erred  \i\Hn\  the  preachers  by  the  Discipline  was  the  reason  of 
their  dissatisfaction — but  we  fnid  again  ihat  the  real  reasoa  Avas  (jnite  a 
ditl'creiit  thing.  Pray  what  is  the  burden  of  coni|)laint.'  Why,  that  they 
Jiave  been  expelled.  And  is  this  a  calamity?  Is  a  despotism  a  blessing  and 
freedom  a  curse?  If  the  ministry  oftlie  M.  E.  Cliurch  are  so  tyrannical,  we 
certainly  have  conferred  a  favour  iu  putting  the  gentli.meu  beyond  the 
reach  of  their  oppression.  If  the  Discipline  is  so  intolerable,  why  should 
the  authors  of  the  pamphlet  lament  so  Iqudly — complain  so  bitterly,  now 
that  they  are  released  from  the  obbgafion  to  obey  it?  Are  we  to  be  reck- 
oned their  enemies  because  we  hare  smitten  oti'  their  fetters,  and  sent  them 
forth  to  rejoice  in  their  freedom?  But  the  "Discipline  gives  the  power"  to 
the  preachers,  say  the  schismatics.  Why  not  rail  against  the  Discipline 
then,  instead  of  denouuciiig  us?  Men  who  have  shown  so  much  love  for 
power  as  to  usurp  it,  should  not  abu.'^e  those  who  come  J  airly  and  honest- 
ly by  it,  according  to  their  own  admission.  But  what  is  the  proof  of  the 
assertion,  that  the  ministry  hate  so  much  ^^power?"  Of  course  the  preach- 
ers choosiiig  a  committee,  and  the  expulsion  of  the  gentlemen.  In  their 
letter  to  Mr.  K.  they  said  th<?  Discipline  guaranteed  them  th>:  right  of  trial 
by  the  society.  Now  they  frhange  their  ground  and  say,  the  ^*despotic 
power  given  to  the  ministry  fy  the  Discipline"  forever  bars  their  reunion  to 
the  church.  The  onl)  proof  they  can  show  of  any  such  power,  is  the 
preacher's  right  to  choose  !he  committee — the  ver}'  proposition  they  but  a 
little  while  ago  stoutly  and  sternly  denied. 

The  gentlemen  say  thf^N  *'7iever  can  again  consent  to  become  members" 
and  assign  as  a  reason  tieir  '■^present  knowledge  of  the  power  given  to  the 
ministry  by  the  Discipline."  And  is  a  love  of  liberty  the  reason — the  only 
reason?  No.  "After  subh  forms  of  trial  and  expulsion,  such  persons  shall 
have  no  privileges  of  sofciety  or  of  sacraments  in  our  church,  without  cox- 
TRiTioN,  CONFESSION,  ft/id  PROPER  TRIAL."  (See  Dis.  p.  91.)  The  persons 
expelled,  and  who  wotU  make  the  world  believe  that  their  knowledge  of 
our  power  j)revents  tli(iir  return  to  the  church,  cannot  return  (power  or  no 
power)  but  on  the  colditions  above. 

But  the  discovery  of  the  fearful  truth  that  the  ministry  have  all  the  pow- 
er, has  been  as  sudden  as  it  is  extraordinary.  Have  they  been  groaning 
under  oppression  during  the  whole  period  of  their  membership?  Were  their 
"inalienable  rights''  sacrificed — burnt  up  upon  their  admission  into  the 
church,  and  just  n^w  had  a  resurrection  from  their  ashes?  These  indivi- 
duals  have  been  members  of  the  church  for  years — the  Discipline  has  been 
the  theme  of  tlxif  panegyric,  and  the  preachers  the  objec;-.  of  their  af- 
fection— the  whol/i  Methodist  economy  has  been  landed  by  fhem  as  the 
j)aragon  of  ehurca  svstems — indeed  through  the  whole  of  this  difficulty 
they  have  reiterated  llicir  avowals  <jf  attachment — to  be  called  Reformers 
was  an  insult:  but  lo!  almost  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye.  the  Discipline  as 


the  code,  and  the  preachers  as  oflicers  iiiidcr  if,  have  slarted  up  into  an  w//rfl. 
despotism! — the  absolute  monarchies  of  Europe  can  hardly  aftord  a  parallel. 
Were  the  gentlemen  insiiicere  in  their  professions?  If  not,  what  has  produced 
this  mighty  change/  The  system  is  the  same — the  power  of  the  ministry 
has  not  been  augmenfod.  What  new  light  have  they  received?  Absolute' 
Jy  none  at  all.  Th>'  whole  of  this  ado  about  despotism — arbitrary  power — 
is  a  mere  sham  employed  iov  popular  effect.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  here, 
that  wc  have  never  known  a  member  of  the  M.  E.  Church  who  walked 
with  his  God  and  lived  above  censure,  that  found  fault  with  the  economy 
of  the  church.  The  complaints  always  grow  out  of  personal  errors* 
which  expose  the  offender  to  pu!iishment,  and  not  out  of  our  ecclesiastical 
policy.  The  Discipline  is  a  "praise  to  them  that  do  well,  and  a  terror  (an 
oticnce  only)  to  evil-doers." 

But  why  have  nearly  150  members  withdrawn  from  the  church?  "In 
consequence  of  the  arbitrary  and  despotic  proceedings"  of  the  ministry, 
say  the  gentlemen.  They  (the  secedcrs)  have  "heard  and  read''  many  a 
time  of  the  power  of  the  minis!  r}-.  "but  were  slow  to  believe  it,  until  they 
were  made  to  feel  thai  poirer  to  its  full  extent.''  Tuey  maue  to  feel  it? 
Pray  tell  us  wherci.i?  Did  we  charge  the?n,  or  try  them,  or  expel  them/ 
What  power  have  we  exercised  in  their  case?  Was  it  "arbitrary  and  des- 
potic" to  accept  their  resignations?  But  ihey  have  felt  our  power  "to  its 
FULL  EXTENT."  Really,  we  can't  see  Itow  or  tell  when.  Their  secession 
was  voluntary,  as  fir  as  we  are  conceriied.  We  have  very  good  reason  to 
believe,  though  we  woidd  not  assert  it  positively,  that  many  of  the  seccders 
signed  the  "portentous  roll"  under  the  conviction  that  when  the  preachers 
saw  the  lo.ig  list  of  namts,  they  would  be  so  IVighiened  at  the  prospect  of 
losing  so  many  members,  as  to  withdraw  the  charges  and  stop  the  prosecu- 
tion.  The}'  declared  (and  it  is  co.tfirmatior.  wethi,  k  of  the  above)  "if  the 
brethren  cited  to  trial  were  CTpelled,"  they  would  resig'.u  The  effect  antici- 
pated by  the  accused  and  the  signers,  was  not  produced  by  the  exhibition 
of  the  paper.  The  experiment  failed — it  was  too  late  to  retract — aiid  those 
who  signed  the  paper  had  to  bide  the  coi-scquences. 

The  reasons  assigned  for  not  impcachi  ig  Dr.  Capers,  ara  as  extraordi- 
nary as  they  are  unsatisfactory.  The  first  roason  is — lui  was  to  be  trans- 
ferred to  tho  Georgia  Co  iference,  and  the  exposition  of  his  aristocratic 
government  of  the  Church  here,  might  m;iteri<illy  itff  ct  his  usefulness 
there.  We  ask  an  e' lightened  community  if  this  is  a,  satisfactory  i\;ason. 
Is  it  a  reason  at  all?  Dr.  C.  was  anie  lable  to  the  South-Carolina  Con- 
fercnce  until  its  clos: — yea,  until  his  appointment  in  Georgia  was  amioun- 
ced  by  the  Presidiiig  Bishop.  Did  his  co;iirniplated  traisfer  obliterate  the 
acts,  which  were  the  ostensible  reasons  for  his  impeachment?  Did  a  state- 
ment in  the  newspapers,  that  he  was  to  hQ  stationed  in  Savannah,  alter,  or 
modify,  or  exteimate  his  otieuces?  But  these  would-be  accusers  did  not 
wish  to  affect  his  usefulness  in  Georgia.  Now,  either  this  kind  forbear- 
ance was  determined  on,  according  to  ths:;ir  showing,  from  a  regard  to  Dr. 
C,  or  from  an  attachment  to  the  interests  of  the  Church.  In  either  case 
the  reason  is  puerile,  inconsistent  and  absurd.     If  it  was  from  a  regard  to 

*  Trne,  the  intimate  ronipanions  and  acquaintances  of  those  arraigned  and  expelled 
may  join  in  the  hue  and  cry  against  tlic  Discipline  and  the  ministry,  as  in  the  present 
case — but  it  is  because  they  love  their  friends  more  than  their  church. 


56 

Dr.  C  then  it  would  seem  to  us,  that  his  reputation  iti  Soutli-Carolina,  is 
a.s  dear  to  him  as  his  nputalion  in  Georgia.  No  doubt  he  prizes  both 
ahke.  His  good  name,  iis  a  Minister,  is  as  important  to  liim  in  Charleston, 
as  in  Savaiurah.  Notwithstanthng,  if  he  had  remained,  no  mcrcv  would 
have  been  felt  or  shown.      Is  this  consistent? 

But  suppose  the  latter  to  have  been  the  reason — then  we  would  apply 
the  same  argument  and  inquire — if  the  interests  of  religion  are  not  as  im- 
portant in  South. Carolina  as  in  Georgia.  Does  Dr.  Capers  value  his  vst- 
fulnx'ss  there,  and  feel  inditVcrent  about  it  hcrel  Do  they  (his  accusers) 
love  the  Church  in  Savannah,  and  despise  the  Church  in  Charleston?  Is 
this  consistent?  Will  the  public  receive  a  reason  involving  in  it  such  ab- 
surdities as  '■^satisfactory  "  We  trow  not.  If  Dr.  C.  was  guilty  in  any 
respect  of  a  violation  of  the  Discipline,  consistency  and  duly  both  would 
have  said,  charge  him  before  the  body  to  which  he  is  responsible  for  his 
administration.  But  no — he  was  going  to  Georgia.  Alas!  for  a  had 
cause. 

Secondly — the  reason  for  arraigning  "his  conduct  before  the  public  now" 
is  wholly  gratuitous  and  unfounded.  We  state  most  positively  and  unequi- 
vocally,  that  Dr.  C.  has  given  no  advice,  nor  has  he  been  consulted  on  any 
step  we  have  taken.  It  is  true  he  has  been  informed  of  the  progress  and 
final  result  of  the  difficulties  here,  and  that  he  approves  the  course  we  have 
adopted.  But  is  approbation  of  an  act  after  its  commission  advice  how  to 
perform  that  act?  is  sanction  afterwards — recommendation  beforehand! — 
We  presume  that  Dr.  C.  has  not  informed  the  gentlemen  what  station  he 
expects  to  fdl  next  ye^r,  nor  do  we  believe  them  to  be  discerners  of  spirits. 
The  first  paragraph  in  the  appendix  is  decisive  proof  that  the  store  of  rea- 
sons was  and  is  bankrupt.  AV^e  rept;at.  Dr.  Capers  had  nothing  to  do  with 
our  proceedings,  and  we  challenge  the  authors  of  the  Pamphlet  to  prove  the 
contrary? 

In  reference  to  the  case  of  the  Local  Preacher,  it  is  said  that  he  was 
notified  to  attend  at  Sumnierville  on  Thursday,  Aug.  7th,  to  answer  to  a 
charge  preferred  against  him.  (It  is  sincerely  hoped  that  he  did  not  au- 
thorise this  statement,  for  he  knew  better.)  What  the  amount  of  the  note 
sent  him  was,  is  not  now  recollected — he  was  afterwards  however,  the 
same  day,  in  conversation  distinctly  told,  that  there  was  not  any  positive 
APPOINTMENT.  The  facts  here  are  as  follows.  The  charge  was  handed 
to  Mr.  Poyas  (the  accused)  on  Monday  the  28th  Jul}^  On  the  31st,  Mr. 
Martin  and  Mr.  Pierce  went  to  see  Dr.  Jones,  (who  was  to  be  one  of  the 
committee)  in  order  to  make  arrangements  for  the  trial.  Dr.  Jones  was 
requested  to  see  Mr.  Ste|)hen  Williams  and  Mr.  West  Williams  as  early  as 
he  could,  to  know  whether  they  would  serve  on  the  committee,  and  if  they 
would,  he  was  authorised  to  make  the  appointment  at  any  place  most  con- 
venient to  themselves,  and  not  too  far  for  us  to  go  up  and  come  down  the 
same  day — at  SummerxnUe  if  he  coidd.  Dr.  Jones  was  to  communicate  to 
us  in  three  or  four  days  the  result.  He  was  however  prevented  from  visit- 
ing the  brethren  according  to  promise,  by  the  heavy  rains  which  fell  ;<bout 
the  first  week  in  last  month.  Mr.  Martin  went  up  again  on  Wednesday, 
the  6th  inst.  to  see  Dr.  Jones,  and  to  learn  what  arrangement  he  had  made. 
The  Dr.  informed  him  of  his  failure,  and  the  reason  of  it,  as  stated  above. 
On  Wednesday  night  Mr.  Poyas  was  informed  of  the  disappoinment  as  to 
•the  dav.     On  Monday.  11th.  we  received  a  letter  from  Dr.  Jones,  stating 


57 

that  he  luid  seen  the  brethren,  and  tlie  appointment  was  niatle  at  Mr.  Ina- 
binet's,  (not  to  or  in  or  at  Cypress  Swamp,  but  hcyond  it,)  on  Wednesday, 
the  13th.     We  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  marked,  that    not  one  ov 

TIIE  PkEACIIERS  had  ANT  TIIINU   TO    DO  WITH    THE  I'ARTICULAR    DAY    OR 

I'LACE  OF  APi'OiNTJiENT.  Thus  it  wiU  be  Seen  that  Mr.  Poyas  had  seven- 
teen days  tor  prcj)aration,  and  received  information  in  due  time  of  every 
arrangement. 

The  reasons  assigned  by  the  accused  for  his  non-atte!idance,  in  a  com- 
munication to  the  Committee,  were — first — "My  accusers  have  no  riglit 
to  carry  me  out  of  my  own  society,  or  the  pUice  where  the  olience  is  said 
to  have  been  committed."  When  asked,  after  the  trial,  by  one  of  the 
preachers,  where  he  found  this  reason,  lie  repHed  in  evident  confusion,  "that 
it  was  customary,  in  Courts  of  Law,  to  try  the  culprit  where  the  oflcnce 
was  said  to  be  conmiitted — and  that  he  had  not  read  the  Discipline  on  the 
subject  until  afterwards."  Thus  acknowledging  his  first  reason  to  be  worth, 
less.  We  presume  his  friends  will  not  differ  from  him  in  judgment.  Se. 
cond.  "The  investigation  can  not  be  gone  through  in  time  for  my  retm'u  to 
the  city  the  same  day;  consequently,  it  would  be  extremely  hazardous  to 
comply."  Third.  "As  my  Mitncsses  will  not  venture  so  far  into  the  coun- 
try,  I  am  cut  ofl'  from  fair  investigation."  The  hazard  of  the  trip  then  is 
the  reason.  This  is  strange.  Were  not  the  Preachers  involved  in  the 
same  difficulty?  Did  they  not  run  the  same  risk?  Did  they  lay  a  burden 
upon  him  and  his  witnesses,  and  refuse  to  touch  it?  Did  they  not  take  a 
full  share?  Self-love  must  have  blinded  the  objectors.  Do  they  not  tell 
us  their  consciences  are  clear.  Do  they  not  appeal  to  the  Searcher  of 
hearts  for  the  rectitude  of  their  intentions?  Why  then  be  afraid?  Con- 
science  makes  men  cowards  sometimes.  When  a  bad  cause  is  about  to 
come  to  an  issue,  prudence  or  policy,  or  both,  lift  their  warning  notes 
upon  its  advocates,  and  cry  '^retreat."  Again.  We  are  told  it  was  with 
''dijictdty"  he  prevailed  upon  his  witnesses  to  consent  to  go  with  him  even 
to  Summervillc.  Why  Avere  they  so  reluctant — so  hard  to  be  persuaded? 
Were  they  afraid?  Of  what?  Sickness?  No.  Almost  every  day  some 
persons  from  the  citj'^  go  up  there,  and  some  even  venture  to  stay  all  night. 
What,  then,  was  the  reason?  We  shall  see  in  the  sequel.  The  indivi- 
duals expelled  not  (on  a  ^^similar  charge,"  as  they  say)  but  the  same  have 
endeavoured  to  impress  the  public  mind  with  the  idea,  botli  before  and  in 
their  publication,  that  if  they  could  have  obtained  a  fair  trial,  the  result 
would  have  been  their  unqualified  acquittal.  This,  as  we  have  shown  be- 
fore, is  but  a.  pretext — but  it  answers  a  purpose.  It  serves  as  a  nail  to  hang 
complaints  upon.  It  was  very  important,  then,  that  this  pretext  should  not 
be  destroyed.  If  Mr.  Poyas  should  have  attended  with  his  witnesses,  and 
it  should  have  so  happened,  that  he  was  found  guilty,  why,  thought  the 
complainants,  the  community  will  say,  "did  not  the  local  Preacher  have  a 
fair  trial  on  the  same  charge?"  What,  then,  will  become  of  our  pretext? 
It  will  never  do  for  the  accused  to  go — and  so  they  told  him.  Do  we  say 
thus  without  authority.  No,  indeed!  Mr.  Poyas  told  the  Preachers  he 
was  "advised"  or  ^^persuaded,"  by  those  he  esteemed  good  friends,  "not  to 
go."  But  this  is  not  all.  The  accused  was  requested,  if  his  witnesses 
would  not  go  with  him,  to  bring  them  to  the  Parsonage,  and  every  particle 
of  testimony  should  be  taken  down,  and  laithfiilly  delivered  to  the  Conmiif- 
tec.  The  appointment  was  made  to  meet  at  the  Parsonage,  at  4  o'clock . 
8 


58 

V.  M.  Tuesday,  the  4tb.  Mr.  Poyas  came  alone.  ^^  hen  asked,  why  his 
■\Mtiiesscs  did  not  come,  he  replied,  they  did  not  like  to  come  to  the  Parson- 
age. A  most  pottnt  reason  surely.  Was  it  hazardous.'  ^^  as  it  risking 
their  lives  unnecessarily]  Once  more.  He  was  then  retjuested  to  get  his 
witnesses  to  write  down  all  the  testimony  they  thought  important,  and  to 
bring  it  to  us,  or  send  it  to  us,  and  it  should  be  laid  before  the  Committee. 
It  w;is  not  done.  We  now  ask,  what  more  we  could  have  done?  Was 
there  any  shufTling  on  our  side?  Let  the  community  judge  now,  who  evaded 
(>■  fair  investigation.  It  is  stated,  moreover,  that  the  Preacher  met  the 
Committee,  and  acted  as  Chairman;  and  on  his  c\  \r,\r{v  statement  a  verdict 
of  guilty  was  rendered.  The  Chairman  did  not  state  th(;  case.  Mr.  Pierce 
explained  the  charges,  and  stated  in  the  strongest  terms,  the  grounds  on 
which  the  accused  attempted  his  justilication.  Mr.  Poyas  had  as  fair  a 
trial  as  he  and  his  coadjutors  \Mjuld  allow?  We  now  recapitulate,  for  we 
wish  to  be  understood.  There  never  was  any  positive  appointment  at 
Summerville,  consequently  no  change;  the  Preachers  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  time  or  place  of  appointment.  Mr.  Poyas  was  exhorted  to  take 
his  witnesses  with  him — when  they  refused  to  go, — he  was  asked  to  bring 
them  to  the  Parsonage,  and  have  their  evidence  taken  down,  when  they  re- 
fused to  come, — he  was  told  to  get  them  to  write  it  down  any  where,  and 
send  it  to  us.  Mr.  Poyas  had  17  days  for  preparation  and  timely  notice  of 
every  arrangement;  and,  we  now  add,  told  the  Preachers  he  really  believed 
we  wished  him  to  have  a  fair  trial. 

As  an  expiring  effort,  the  opening  of  a  letter,  a  sealed  letter  too,  (by  the 
by  it  was  a  mere  note)  is  introduced,  in  order  to  cast  odium  upon  the  Prea- 
chers on  this  station.  The  letter  (if  it  must  be  called  so)  was  addressed 
to  Dr.  Jones,  who,  it  was  supposed,  would  be  one  of  the  Committee,  and 
was  enclosed  in  the  communication  containing  the  reasons  of  the  accused 
for  not  attending.  What  was  the  fair  inference?  Surely,  that  it  was  the 
property  of  the  Committee;  or,  at  the  very  least,  the  conjecture  was  a  pro- 
bably one,  that  it  might  contain  information  which  the  author  wished  to  be 
given  to  the  Committee.  The  contents  of  the  note  afi'ord  proof  enough, 
that  it  was  for  the  Committee.  The  substance  of  it  was  a  request,  that 
Dr.  Jones*  would  use  his  influence  to  get  the  accused  a  fair  trial.  With 
whom,  pray,  was  he  to  use  his  influence,  but  with  the  Committee?  Mr. 
Poyas,  unasked,  told  one  of  the  Preachers,  after  the  trial,  the  contents  of 
the  note;  and  but  for  the  PreacJier^s  honesty,  he  would  never  have  known 
that  it  had  been  opened.  There  has  been  no  attempt  at  concealment  in  any 
case,  for  we  feel  no  guilt.  "Darkness"  is  a  fit  covering  for  "ei"?7  deeds 
alone.  We  may  not  be  so  astute  in  cases  of  casuistry,  nor  so  skilled  in 
points  of  etiquette  as  our  accusers;  but  we  have  too  much  sense  to  make 
our  enemies  our  father  confessors. 

Mr  Poyas  has  acted  an  exceedingly  unworthy  part,  in  the  use  which  he 
has  not  only  permitted,  but  doubtless  authorized  his  friends,  to  make  of  this 
circumstance.  When  informed  by  Mr.  Pierce,  of  the  fact — he  expressed 
no  dissatisfaction — no  surprise.  He  knew  the  character  axiAform  of  the 
letter  (as  it  is  called)  and  if  he  thought  we  had  acted  amiss,  he  lacked  the 
courage  characteristic  of  a   noble  and   generous  spirit  to  tell  m*   so,  but- 

♦  Dr.  Jeaea  was  prevented  from  attendiog  the  trial  fcy  his  jprefefsieiial  eBgagCmeMfs. 
Hi*"  ptece  wis  supplied  by  Mr.  BradwelK 


retailed  it  to  those,  who  it  seems  are  willi  ig  to  magnify  audi  pervert  auy 
thing  which  can  be  used  to  our  iujury, — has  escaped  from  the  responsi- 
biUty  of  charging  us  with  blame,  by  throwing  the  burden  of  it  upon  his 
bolder  partners,  who  we  charitably  believe  are  ignorant  of  the  real  facts  in 
the  case. 

Mr.  Poyas  has  returned  evil  for  good — injustice  for  mere)'.  He  knows 
very  well,  what  co.icessioas  ho  made  to  the  preachers  in  aconver-ation  with 
them  before  his  trial.  We  disdained  to  use  them  against  him,  and  told 
him  so,  b!)th  before  and  after.  We  will  even  now  save  him  from  the  mdig- 
nation  of  his  party,  by  withholding  wh.it  he  said.  We  leave  him  to  the  re- 
flections  which  his  conscience  may  awaken  within  him;  and  submit  the 
case  without  a  fear  {^'■incredible  as  it  may  seem")  to  the  judgment  of  our  rea- 
ders. 

To  conclude  the  whole  matter,  we  say,  that  the  course  of  the  schismatics 
from  beginning  to  end,  was  irregular,  self-willed  and  precipitate.  The 
peace  of  the  Church  was  sacrificed  by  them,  in  their  attcinpt  to  stride  over 
law,  and  order,  and  usage,  to  the  absolute  control  of  the  Church  prop(  rtv. 
They  pretended  that  the  sole  object  of  their  manoeuvering  was  simply  to 
fix  the  responsibility  of  the  Trustees.  To  do  this,  a  party,  a  fuere  minority 
of  the  Church,  assumed  conventional  power,  and  proceeded  to  alter  the  Dis- 
cipline  which  declares  the  Trustees  responsible  to  the  Quarterly  Confe- 
rence,  and  to  adopt  by-laws  (they  call  them)  making  the  Trustees  responsi- 
ble to  themselves.  But  the  constitution  they  formed,  and  under  which  they 
claim  authority  for  all  thyir  subsequent  acts,  not  only  empowered  them  to 
displace  the  Trustees  and  to  elect  others;  but  to  elect  every  officer  of  the 
Church.  If  there  was  no  sinister  design  in  this,  why  insert  it?  It  could 
imt  have  been  an  oversight.  Why  did  they  ordain  that  their  constitution 
should  bii  supreme,  a.:id  the  Discipline  subordinatel  Did  they  not  adopt  the 
Discipli:ie  as  the  rule,  the  only  rule,  when  they  joined  the  Church?  Could 
they  refuse  to  be  governed  by  it,  without  laying  themselves  liable  to  expul- 
sion? The  whole  contrivance — the  meeting — the  constitution — all  have  a 
suspicious  asp*'ct,  indeed  the  object  is  plain.  "A  way-faring  man,  though  a 
fool"  can  understand  it.  Each  successive  movement  has  made  it  plainer 
and  plainer  still.     Poioer,  supremacy,  was  the  object. 

Aiul  how  do  they  attempt  to  justify  thsir  factious  organization?  What 
apology  can  they  m  ike  for  wounding  their  Saviour  in  the  house  of  his 
friends — for  desolating  the  peace  of  th('  Society — for  exposing  the  Church 
t'»  the  saeer  of  the  ungodly,  and  the  scorn  of  the  infidel?  Why  the 
"Trustees  would  not  show  their  books;"  they  were  refractory.  For  ar- 
gument sake,  admit  it  to  be  true — and  is  this  a  suflicient  justification — 
is  it  an  excuse  for  their  ruinous  course?  Is  oae  evil  to  be  sanctified  by 
another?  Is  wrong  to  be  neutralized  by  wroiig — obstinacy  by  rebel- 
lion? The  Discipline  prescribed  a  remedy  for  the  diiriculty,  but  this 
did  not  suit  their  purpose.  It  was  too  regular  and  common. place,  and 
to  have  api)lied  it.  might  have  l:;ftthe  gentlemen  out  of  power.  This  would 
have  b3c:i  the  ruin  of  plan,  aud  hope,  and  prospect.  The  government  of  the 
Clmrch  must  bo  remodeled — the  Trustees  pj/Z  out  of  ojfice  and  the  schismat- 
icf.  put  in.  "All  former  modes  of  managmn  nit"  must  be  repealed  tlmt  would 
hiiider  such  an  arra::g(>ment.  Nothi  ig  short  of  this  coul.l  be  satisfactory. 
In  view  of  all  their  revoiu'.ionary  measures,  the  Church  suffered  patient- 
ly — exercised  an  almost  guilty  forh(>arancc — adopted  every  possible  rxpo- 


60 

diffjit  j'liorf  wltlie  surrender  of  licr  authority — warned,  entreated,  advised, 
but  all  to  no  cflcct.  '■'■Becousc  seutenre  against  their  rr?7  irorhs  iras  7wt  exe- 
cuted speedily,  there  fare  their  hearts  were  fuUy  srt  iti  them  to  do  evil.''  Ev- 
ery attempt  ;it  conciliation  \v;is  regarded  as  flowing  from  a  sense  of  weak- 
ness. Forbearance  was  construed  into  an  acknowledgment  of  their  claims. 
Meetings  unholy  in  their  tendency  were  kept  up — the  faction  strengthened 
— the  Church  rent  and  torn  with  strit'e — the  ordinances  of  God's  house 
neglected — various  attempts  made  lo  intimidate  the  preachers  iiUo  submis- 
sion to  their  views,  by  gloMing  preilictions  of  the  ruin  of  the  Churrh  if  they 
did  not  succeed — the  claims  of  the  Discipline  set  at  nought — advice  spumed; 
entreaty  mocked,  and  various  other  evidences  of  a  reckless  determination  to 
be  Rabbis  at  all  hazard-^,  indicated  most  clearly  the  real  object  of  their  ever 
to  be  regretted  combination.  Finally,  they  declare  that  nothing  would 
satisfy  them,  but  the  (Mitire  recognition  of  their  constitution  and  by-laws; 
they  were  independent — they  intended  to  be  the  legislature  of  the  Church; 
they  were  Hhe  Chtireh'^  absolute  and  infallible.  Nobody  understood  the  act 
of  incorporation  but  themselves.  The  Disci|)line  was  a  sealed  book  to  all 
others.  Th(;y  only  were  wise,  and  good,  and  worthy  to  be  entrusted  M'ith 
power.  All  rise  were  fools,  and  base.  Gentleness  and  favor  could  not 
learn  them  righteousness.  The  interposition  of  an  authoritative  decision, 
was  but  a  cobweb  in  their  onward  march.  The  Church  could  bear  no  lon- 
ger. She  was  compelled  to  vindicate  her  Discipline,  by  their  expulsion. — 
She  would  have  been  recreant  to  herself  if  she  had  surrendered  her  authori- 
ty. Her  interests  demanded  decisive  measures.  The  time  for  prompt  and 
energetic  action  had  come.  The  result  has  demonstrated,  that  she  acted 
wisely  in  the  application  of  the  painful,  but  necessary  remedy.  Harmony 
is  restored.  Order  reigns  and  wo  trust  "the  set  time  to  favor  Zion  is  at 
hand." 

Our  economy  as  a  church  is  no  secret.  It  is  before  the  world.  "He 
that  runs  may  read."  We  deceive  no  man.  It  is  required  of  all  who  en- 
ter on  probation  among  us,  that  they  rend  the  Discipline  previous  to  their 
admission  into  the  fellowship  of  the  (.'hurch.  The  requisitions  and  sanc- 
tions of  it  are  explicit.  The  schismatics  trampled  upon  the  one,  and  defied 
the  other.  As  to  our  administration,  we  feel  that  we  are  sustained,  by  the 
facts  and  necessity  of  the  case.  We  stand  upon  the  high  ground  of  duty 
and  truth.  We  fear  no  scrutiny.  Our  proceedings  have  been  impartial, 
fearless,  and  just.  We  have  not  been  partisans,  nor  have  we  acted  hastily. 
If  we  have  been  oppressors — there  is  a  tribunal  to  which  we  a7*e  amenable. 
Like  Job  of  old,  we  ask  nothing  more  than  to  be  ^'weighed  in  an  even  ba- 
lance." WM.  M.  KENNEDY,  P.  C. 

WM.  MARTIN. 

GEORGE  F.  PIERCE. 
CJiarleston,  September,  1834. 

J\ofc. — We  have  been  informed  that  if  we  replied  to  the  pamphlet  of  the  Schismat- 
ics and  dared  to  contradict,  any  of  their  statenients — the  whole  would  be  established  by 
oaths.  We  have  written  in  view  of  their  being  unable  to  make  any  other  reply. — 
We  have  a  specimen  of  their  affidavits  before  us.  V\'c  know  what,  and  why  wc  have 
written,  and  fear  no  consequences. 


61 


APPENDIX. 


The  scliismastics  have  so  commingled  their  accusations  against  the 
Preachers  and  Trustees,  that  the  vindication  of  one,  necessarily  involves 
the  vindication  of  the  other.  We  feel  it  unimportant,  conscquentl)',  to  say 
much  in  self  defence.  We  appeal  from  the  perverted  statements  of  our 
accusers,  to  the  facts  as  they  have  been  stated  and  explained  in  the  pre. 
ceding  pages.      One  or  two  brief  remarks  will  suffice  for  us. 

The  Trustees  affirm,  most  positively,  that  they  never  did  refuse  to  abide 
by  the  decision  of  the  Bishops  upon  the  questions  submitted  to  them.  In 
our  letter  to  Bishop  Emory,  (which  has  been  made  an  apology  for  renewed 
action  on  the  part  of  the  Corporation  party)  there  is  not  a  sentence  or  word 
which  authorizes  the  idea,  that  we  were  disposed  to  rebel  against  the  au- 
thorities of  the  Church.  We  had  no  opportunity  while  the  Bishop  was  in 
the  city,  to  express  an  opinion  concerning  the  plan  set  forth  in  the  paper 
read  by  him  to  the  Church,  as  the  basis  of  an  adjustment  of  the  then  exist- 
ing difficuhies.  We  would  have  considered  it  a  favour  to  have  given  our 
views  before  he  left,  but  wa  could  not,  as  the  paper  was  read  on  Sabbath, 
and  he  let\  on  Monday  morning.  Accordingly,  we  wrote  to  him,  and  said, 
that  we  could  not  approve  the  plan  as  stated  in  the  paper.  We  did  not 
say,  nor  did  the  Bishop  so  understand  us,  that  we  would  not  abide  the  de- 
cision. The  Bishop's  letter  to  Mr.  K.  is  conclusive  proof  on  this  point. 
He  quotes  our  words,  "disapproval  of  the  plan,"  and  then  adds,  "if  the  breth- 
ren  do  not  agree  to  abide  by  the  measures  stated  in  the  paper. ^^  It  seems  to 
us,  there  is  a  broad  and  clear  diflerence  between  the  disapproval  of  the 
paper,  and  a  refusal  to  abide  the  decision.  Even  if  we  did  not  approve  the 
decision,  it  does  not  follow  that  we  must  disobey  it.  The  truth  is.  we  should 
have  been  compelled  to  abide  by  it,  or  have  withdrawn  from  the  Church. 
This  the  gentlenicn  know,  and  yet  circulate  the  absurd  statement,  that  wc 
refused  to  abide  by  it.  Such  a  refusal  would  have  been  the  signal  for 
our  expulsion. 

Tlie  letter  of  the  Treasurer  of  the  Board,  is  so  quoted  by  the  authorsTof 
tiio  pamphlet,  as  to  convey  the  idea,  that  he  and  the  Trustees  had  no  proper 
regard  to  the  order  and  decencies  of  society,  in  that  they  paid  no  attention 
to  ''the  accommodation  of  gentlemen  tvho  occasionally  visited  the  Chiirch.''\ — 
The  declaration  is  unfounded — unauthorized  by  the  facts  in  the  case — and 


62 

unsustained  by  tho  letter  which  they  have  so  grossly  perverted.  It "  h:is 
been  throughout  the  uniform  pohcy  of  the  gentlemen,  to  put  the  -worse 
possible  construction  upon  every  thing  which  could  be  converted  into  a 
party  instrument.  To  show  the  fallacy  of  the  charge,  they  bring  against 
us  on  this  subject,  we  would  refer  to  the  journal  of  the  Quarterly  Confer- 
ence of  the  "JSJ  of  October,  1829,  when,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  Trustees,  a 
list  of  the  leaders  was  made  out,  and  a  Committee  appointed  to  prevent 
the  intrusions  complained  of, — it  was  proposed  that  this  arrangement  be 
continued  from  time  to  time,  the  appointments  being  made  each  quarter 
until  all  the  leaders  had  served,  ('riie  most  of  the  Trustees  arc  leaders.) 
The  majorily  of  those  chosen  belonged  to  the  Corjwration  party,  so  called. 
Why  did  they  not  do  their  duty?  Why  roll  the  burden  of  their  sins  upon 
us?     Is  this  Justice? 

It  is  boldly  reported,  and  confidently  believed  by  some,  that  the  Trus- 
tees have  refused  to  show  their  books?  At  the  third  Quarterly  Conference 
of  the  past  year,  wc  brought  the  Journal  pf  the  acts  of  the  Board,  and  pre- 
sented  it  to  the  Conference.  When  asked  for  what  purpose  it  had  been 
brought,  we  replied,  to  give  mformation  to  the  members,  particularly  con- 
cerning the  expenditures  in  erecting  a  Parsonage.  Mr.  Honour,  the  Se- 
cretary,  was  requested  to  read  it.  He  did  so.  And  now  these  men  come 
forward  and  say,  the  Trustees  would  not  show  their  books.  Why  did  not 
these  gentlemen  incorporate  this  gross  offence — this  glaring  sin,  (as  they 
profess  to  regard  it)  in  the  charges  preferred  against  us?  The  reason  is 
obvious.  The  motion  which  was  made  for  the  appointment  of  a  Commit- 
tee to  examine  our  books,  and  which  was  objected  to  by  one  of  us,  and  the 
objection  sustained  by  the  President,  is  exhibited  as  evidence,  that  we  were 
conscious  of  our  corruption,  and  dreaded  investigation.  The  President 
said  that,  according  to  Discipline,  the  fourth  Quarterly  Conference  would 
be  the  proper  period  for  such  a  motion.  The  Trustees  objected  mainly  be- 
cause they  had  been  informed  by  a  friend,  upon  whom  they  could  rely, 
previously  to  the  sitting  of  the  Conference,  that  such  a  motion  was  to  be 
made,  and  that  the  intention  of  it  was,  to  get  and  keep  possession  of  the 
books.  This  corresponded  so  exactly  with  what  we  knew  to  be  the  wish 
of  the  Trustees  of  the  Corporation,  (as  they  style  themselves)  from  the 
fact  that  they  had  once  already  authoritatively  demanded  the  surrender  of 
the  books,  that  we  believed  it.  We  still  think  that  the  motion  was  n  party 
artifice  to  accomplish  party  purposes. 

In  the  financial  department  of  our  Church,  there  are  two  classes  of  offi- 
cers— the  Stewards  and  the  Trustees.  The  first  receive  all  the  public — 
class,  and  sacramental  contributions — the  two  former  are  applied  to  the 
support  of  the  ministry — the  latter  exclusively  to  thi;  poor.  The  Trustees 
hold  the  real  estate  in  trust,  tor  the  Church — keep  the  houses  of  worship 
with  their  premises,  and  the  Parsonage  in  nipair — receive  the  rent  and  in- 
terment fees.  The  Stewards  and  the  Trustees  are  entirely  distinct;  to  each 
specific  duties  are  assigned.  We  make  these  remarks,  because  the  impres- 
sion has  gone  abroad,  that  the  Trustees  hold  the  propt^rty,  and  receive,  and 
disburse  at  pleasure  all  the  funds  of  the  Church.  We  know  our  duty  and 
we  have  tried  to  perform  it.  That  we  have  failed  to  satisfy  those  who 
were  determined  not  to  be;  satisfied,  and  who  wished  to  fdl  our  places,  with 
€tdarged  powers  derived  from  their  independent  constitution — we  do  not  con- 
sider at  all   marvellous.     We  have  labored  for  the  Church  long  and  faith- 


63 


fully,  without  fee  or  reward  except  the  testimony  of  a  good  ^conscience 
and  of  this  our  enemies  cannot  deprive  ns.  They  have  done  us  great  in- 
justice, only  to  originate  a  pretext  for  their  schismatic  measures.  We  now 
dismiss  the  subject  and  commit  our  cause  to  Him  whojudgeth  righteously. 

ABLE  McKEE, 

SAM'L.  J.  WAGNER, 

HENRY  MUCKINFUSS, 

SAMUEL  SEYLE,  J.  Trustees. 

GEORGE  CHRITZBURG, 

GEORGE  JUST, 

WILLL\M  BIRD, 
Charleston,  Sept.  1834. 


t^ 


The  following,  is  a  reprint  ot'the  second  pamphlet  of  the  secedcrs,  (call- 
ed  "A  Rejoinder  to  an  Exposition  ofthe  late  schism  in  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  in  Charleston,")  to  which  tlie  preceding  Report,  and  Docu- 
ments, have  reference. 


A  REJOINDER. 


At  the  close  of  the  Exposition  made  by  us  in  August  last,  ofthe  causes  which  led  to 
the  secession  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  this  city,  we  remarked,  that  with 
that  exposition  the  controversy  on  our  part  ceased,  unless  we  were  compelled  to  renew  it 
in  self-defence.  Wo  hoped  to  have  been  spared  the  trouble  of  doing  so;  for  although 
ne  expected  that  all  the  arts  of  sophistry  would  be  put  in  requisition  to  explain  away 
our  statements,  we  could  not  believe  it  possible  that  men  "professing  godliness,"  howev- 
er suspicious  we  might  be  of  their  profrssioiis,  would  be  so  reckless  as  publicly  to  deny 
the  facts  themselves.  Their  having  done  so  however,  necessarily  compels  us  again  to 
appear  before  the  public,  to  make  some  brief  remarks  upon  the  book  published  by  Dr. 
Capers,  Mr.  Kennedy,  Mr.  Martin  and  Mr.  Pierce,  and  to  point  out  so«)c  ofthe  most 
prominent  misstatements;  to  notice  them  all  would  occupy  more  of  our  time  than  wo 
have  to  spare  to  the  performance  of  so  onerous  a  duty,  and  would  swell  this  publication 
to  8uch  a  size,  as  would  tire  the  patience  ofthe  reader.  In  doing  this,  we  hope  to  man- 
ifest that  our  religion  is  "not  in  word  and  tongue  only,"  by  endeavouring  to  avoid  the 
example  so  bountifully  set  us,  of  vituperation  and  abuse. 

The  first  thing  we  shall  notice,  is  Dr.  Capers'  denial  of  having  read  the  paper  at  the 
meeting  ofthe  corporation  ofthe  church,  held  on  the  12th  November,  1833,  as  set 
forth  in  our  previous  publication,  page  8. 

lie  observes,  "To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  the  paper  which  you  say  I  read,  was 
not  the  one  I  did  read;  nor  did  I  read  the  paper  which  was  read,  after  the  manner  re- 
lated by  you.  I  had  two  papers  of  the  committee,  one  the  resolution  adopted  by  the 
corporation  party,  at  their  meeting  in  the  school  room,  on  the  29th  Oct.  and  the  other  a 
note  from  the  committee  to  myself.  The  one  being  a  sort  of  ofiicial  document  of  your 
party,  then  just  beginning  to  shew  itself  as  a  party,  I  was  induced  to  put  among  my  pa- 
pers, the  other,  to  my  great  regret,  1  did  not  consider  of  any  future  consequence,  and  did 
not  preserve." 

Can  any  man  hope  to  impose  upon  an  intelligent  community  by  such  a  "puerile" 
statement  as  this?  Why  was  one  paper,  admitting  for  the  sake  of  argument  that  he  had 
received  two,  more  of  an  "ofTicial  document"  than  the  other?  If  he  deemed  it  so  im- 
portant to  preserve  owe,  why  destroy  the  other?  Strange  indeed,  that  he  who  has  so 
carefully  "put  among  his  papers,"  every  trifling  communication,  however  unimportant, 
and  which  arc  spread  out  in  such  an  imposing  manner  in  his  publications,  should  have- 
destroyed  the  only  one  which  could  establish  his  innocence  ofa  grave  charge  publicly 
made  against  him;  and  made  too,  at  a  time  when  we  could  not  possibly  know  but  that 
this  important  document,  which  was  so  clearly  to  convict  us  of  falsehood,  was  in  liis  pos- 
session and  would  be  brought  forward  against  us!  But  he  flatly  contradicts  himself  about 
this  same  paper.  First,  he  tells  us  that  one  was  a  "sort  of  otflcial  document  of  the  par- 
ty," and  he  preserved  it;  but  on  the  very  next  page  he  asserts  that  this  same  "othcial  do- 
cument" was  so  irrelevant  to  the  matter  in  hands  that  he  did  not  read  it  at  the  meeting, 
but  chose  rather  to  read  the  one  which  was  so  unimportant  that  he  did  not  think  it  worth 
preserving.  But  again,  why  did  he  not  say  one  word  about  this  .second  paper  when  he 
published  his  first  pamphlet?  Turn  to  page  19  of  it  as  republi.shcd,  and  read,  "a  few 
days  after  this  date,  iho  follow  ins;  paper  was  handed  me  by  the  committ(!e  mentioned 
in  it,"  and  then  follows  the  identical  paper  which  we  charge  him  with  having  read  in  a 
perverted  manner.  Is  there  a  single  word  said  about  any  other  paper!  and  if  there  had 
been  another,   can  any  person  believe  for  .i  moment  that  he  would  have  omitted  men- 


III 


:ioning  il:  He  doe>  i>oi  ».iy  the  coininiucc  tnclottui,  bui  iiamlid  Imn  ilu.-  jjiijiur.  If 
tlic  eommittco  uaitcd  upon  liiin  in  pcr>;on,  as  lie  adiniu  tlioy  did,  nnd  liandtnl  iiiin  tlie 
pnper  contnin'mg  the  proceedings  of  tlifi  meeting,  wliorn  \v:is  the  proprietv  of  writing  a. 
note?  l*»d  they  write  to  explain  the  object  of  tiicir  rail,  dclircr  their  aim  note  prrson- 
nlly,  aii'l  thfn  hiving  thus  introduced  themselves,  and  stated  in  writing  the  object  of 
their  viiit.  deliver  ihc  utlu  r  paper;  IVi-po'^t^  i<»us!  Tlie  Doctor  is  very  careful  however, 
not  to  a-vcrt  positively  that  hf  did  not  re-^A  il»»»  pnper,  l)«t  says,  "to  tlie  bp«t  of  his  re- 
collection'." Is  his  memory  so  vorj-  treacherous  that  lie  e.-mnot  with  eertainty,  reniom- 
her  a  transaction  of  sueh  great  impcriancc?  If  so,  why  not  wet  it  refreshed  by  "a  bit 
from  the  memory  of  one,  and  a  bit  from  another"  of  his  friends,  so  as  to  render  the  mat- 
ter certain?  Mjs  communication  is  dated  "^^avannah,"  I  ut  as  it  was  published  hero,  and 
he  superintended  the  publication,  we  presume  his  ol  jecl  here  was  to  obtain  the  support 
of  his  friends.     Were  ihf'y  unwilling  to  givf'  it? 

But  we  unhesitatingly  ailirm,  on  the  authority  of  the  commiitee  themselves,  that  no 
paper  was  handed  to  biin,  save  tiie  one  pui|.orting  to  be  the  p-i'T'^^ditigs  of  the  meeting, 
as  published  both  by  Dr.  Cnpers  r.nd  ourselves  \V(  have  ass.^rted  that  he  did  read  the 
paper  published  by  us,  and  that  he  read  it  in  the  manner  stated.  Thi.s  he  denies.  Here 
then  we  are  at  issue;  who  shaii  determine  between  hs.'  We  have  at  least  this  advan- 
tage; we  are  eight  to  one.  But  wc  refer  to  liio  aunexed  affidavits  in  substantiation  of 
the  truth  of  what  we  say;  and  wr  beg  leave  to  premise,  (though  we  have  no  7tw"»A  to 
enlist  the  f^ympathies  of  the  public  on  our  behalf,)  that  we  too  have  "sons atnl 
daughter."-;"  and  that  our  reputations  arc  as  dear  to  us,  as  Dr.  Capers'  can  be  to  him,-  and 
we  will  add,  that  if  condemned  by  the  community,  in  which  we  have  spent  nearly  all  onr 
lives,  we  cannot  run  off  to  "Georgia,"  or  any  where  else,  but  must  stand  and  bear  the 
contumely  and  disgrace  which  must  come  upon  us  if  found  guilty  of  intentional  falsehood. 

STATE  OF  SOUTH-CAROLINA. 

Personally  appeared  before  me,  AV.  Laval,  Wm.  Kirkwood  and  Oliver  B.  Hillard, 
who,  being  duly  sworn,  severally  depose,  and  say,  that  they,  as  a  committee,  appointed 
by  a  meeting  of  the  male  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  held  on  tlie  29th 
October,  1833,  under  a  resolution  requiring  a  call  of  tlie  church  m  ils  corporate  capaci- 
ty— did  call  on  Dr.  Capers  at  the  Parsonage  house,  and  presented  him  with  a  certified  co- 
py of  the  resolution,  published  in  the  pamphlet  by  Dr.  Capers  last  year,  and  referred  to 
in  this  controversy;  that  after  some  conversation  on  the  subject.  Dr.  Capers  requested  to 
be  allowed  time  to  communicate  with  the  Presiding  Elder,  the  Rev.  Henry  Rass,  which 
tvas  readily  acceded  to  by  the  committee.  Deponents  farther  state,  that  Dr.  Capers' 
last  remark  to  them,  on  leaving,  was,  "If  you  will  meet  and  elect  your  Trustees,  let  me 
beg  you  to  make  them  responsible  to  the  Quarterly  Conference,  and  not  to  the  church." 
They  furltier  testify,  that  they  did  not  then,  either  individually,  or  as  a  committee,  give 
any  note  or  other  paper  to  the  doctor,  except  the  Renolution  in  question;  neither  did 
they  previously  or  subsequently,  give,  send  or  write  to  him  any  note  or  paper  otlier  ihaa 
the  one  aheady  mentioned. 

W.  LAVAL, 

WILLIAM  KIRKWOOD. 
O.  B.  HILLARD. 
Hworn  to  before  me,  this  24th  Sept.  1834. 

WM.  ED.  IIAYNE,  Q.  U.  Sf  J\'of.  Pub. 

•STATE  OF  SOUTH  CAROLINA,  > 

City  oj  Charleston.  5 
Personally  appeared  before  me,  the  undersigned  persons,  who  beiitg  severally  sworu, 
declare,  that  the  paper  read  in  Trinity  Church,  on  the  12th  November,  1833,  by  Dr. 
William  Capers,  was  the  same  paper  referred  to  in  the  pamphlet  published  by  our  com- 
mittee, as  the  resolution  of  the  meeting  of  October  29tb,  1833,  requiring  a  meeting  of  the 
church  in  its  corporate  capacity,  and  th«  same  as  publish«Hl  by  Dr.  Capers,  in  lii.«i  pam- 
phlet dated  November  28,  1833;  that  is  to  say,  tJte  words  as  read  by  Dr.  Capers  fioni  a 
paper  held  by  him,  and  which  he  said  was  tlie  resolution  handed  to  him  by  the  commit- 
tee, were  verbatim  those  which  were  contained  in  the  resolution  as  slated  by  the  com- 
mittee, and  acknowledged  by  the  doctor  in  his  first  pamphlet.  Deponents  fnithev  de- 
clare, that  Dr.  Capers  did  deny  that  there  was  "one  word  of  corporation  in  the  vvhoK; 
paper,"  that  he  omitted  the  reading  of  the  words  "in  its  corporate  capacity,"  at  the  same 
time  declaring  tkit  he  "read  honestly,  and  if  anv  one  doubted  it;  he  miffht  rome  and  read 


2J 

for  Iiimself.''  They  fuither  teslify,  that  he  again  read  the  paper,  iucludiug  the  wcrdd 
previously  omitted,  saying,  "I  care  not  what  it  says,  I  did  not  call  a  corporation  meeting." 
Furthermore,  deponents  declare,  that  the  statements  as  set  forth  in  our  pamphlet,  tOHch- 
jng  the  transactions  of  the  meeting  of  the  12th  November,  1838,  are  substantially  true, 
and  to  the  best  of  our  belief  specifically  so. 

OLIVER  B.  HILLARD,  THOMAS  A.  HAYDEN, 

JOHN  BROWN,  CHARLES  W.  HURST, 

W.S.  WALKER,  W.LAVAL, 

W.  W.  (iODFREY,  J.  H.  HONOUR, 

JOHN  T.  SYME,  GEORGE  M.  KEILS, 

EDWARD  M.  MOOD.  J.  F.  STIENMEYER, 

WILLIAM  KIRKWOOD,  JOSEPH  A.  HINES, 

JOHN  KINGiMAN,  HENRY  W.  SxMITH, 

F.  A.  BECKMANN,  C.  L.  HAPPOLDT, 

J.  LAVAL,  Jr.  THOMAS  HONOUR.* 

SAMUEL  NORTON, 
The  above  affidavit  has  been  sworn  to  before  me,  this  24th  Sept.  1834. 

THOMAS  MARTIN,  Q.  U.  [l.s.] 

The  next  misstatement  which  we  shall  notice,  is  one  that  is  repeated  several  time* 
through  the  book,  viz:  that  we  wore  always  ui  a  minority  of  one  third  of  the  male 
members.  In  a  note  on  page  13  it  is  said,  "the  whole  number,"  (of  the  corporation 
party)  "was  under  fifty  persons;"  and  "at  that  time  there  were  one  hundred  and  forty 
five  male  members  belonging  to  the  church  "  "The  list  of  names;"  we  are  told  "may 
be  seen  by  any  one  at  the  ?>Iethodist  Parsonage,  corner  of  Boundary  and  Pitt  streets, 
Charleston,  th(  authors  of  the  pamphlet  excepted.'"  And  why  except  them?  because 
they  are  "sufficiently  informed."  True:  they  are  sufficiently  informed  to  detect  any  im- 
position which  may  be  attempted,  by  shewing  the  names  of  persons  who,  either  sever 
were  members,  or  who  have  died,  resigned,  or  been  expelled  ye:irs  since. 

It  is  not  a  great  while  ago,  that  Dr  Capers  charged  a  preaclier  in  the  annual  conler- 
ence,  with  having  returned  to  the  conference  the  names  of  persons  as  members  of  the 
church  in  Charleston,  who  were  dead,  or  had  removed  ten  years  previously.  Have  the 
proper  corrections  ever  been  made  on  the  book.'  But  if  we  were  always  a  minority  of 
"one  third  of  the  male  members,"  why  so  fearful  at  all  times,  to  submit  a  question  to 
the  decision  of  the  members?  It  will  not  do,  gentlemen,  your  bare  assertions  are  insufli- 
cient;  we  want  proof  The  best  evidence  ,■/•(■  can  give,  of  our  number,  is  that  sixty  tivo 
(not  forty  five,)  male  members  have  seceded  from  the  church;  and  now  we  challenge 
you  in  the  face  of  this  community,  to  publish  the  names  of  (we  will  not  say  one  hundred 
twenty  four,  which  number  you  ought  to  have  to  shew  that  we  are  a  minority  of  one 
third)  but  of  six<j/ male  members  remaining  in  the  church.  No  equivocation  if  you. 
please;  come  out  openly;  your  refusal  to  do  so,  will  be  construed  into  something  worse 
than  a  "rhetorical  flourish."! 

.  On  page  16  is  the  following.  "It  was  a  principal  object  with  ns  to  induce  them  (the 
corporation  party)  to  pass  the  adjourned  meeting  of  December  2,  without  going  further 
toward  a  revolutionary  organization.  Brother  Kennedy,  whose  interference  at  my  invi- 
tation seemed  to  be  well  taken,  applied  himself  earnestly  towards  this  object,  and  on  Sa- 
turday evening,  November  30,  he  iiiforined  me  that  the  leading  members  of  the  party, 
had  agreed  to  suspend  proceedings,  provided,  we  would  ciill  a  meeting  of  the  male  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  to  adopt  measures  for  the  settlement  of  the  question,"  &c.  "It  was 
understood  that  they  might  come  together  on  the  evening  of  the  2d,  according  to  their 
previous  adjournment;  but  they  pledged  thtmselves  to  brother  Kennedy,  to  do  nothing 
on  the  subjects  in  dispute."  We  ask,  who  pledged  themselves?  J\~ot  us  certainly,  nor 
any  other  person  that  ever  we  heard  of  before.  We  liope  Mr.  Kennedy  did  not  make 
this  statement;  if  he  did,  we  would  respectfully  ask  these  Reverend  gentlemen,  if  either 

*  3Iany  whose  namos  are  not  .subscribed  to  this  affidavit,  are  Avithlield  in  consequence  of 
thfir  not  h.aving  been  pres.-nt  during  the  ivkole  of  ihr  proceeduigs.  Wo  presume  the  truth  of  the 
iitatemeni  will  not  be  denied  by  ths  "godlif'  men  v.ho  were  present. 

t  Sine .'  writing  thf  above,  we  have  fully  ascertained  that  the  invitation  to  sec  the  "list  of 
names"  of  the  '■^  one  hundred  and  fort  iif':€  male  metnbers.,"  is  anrm;>ty  bravado,  intended  for  effect. 
Several  gentlemen,  not  "'authors  ofthe  pamphlet,"  have  called  at  the  "Methodist  Parsonage, 
comer  of  Pitt  aud  Boundary  ><trefts."  for  that  purpose,  and  wcro  fll  t!nt  i(i';>  ■•hurrh  books  w^ro 
prirntr,  and  no'  gnhjc-  fto  the  thsjitction  offv'n/bodir'.'! 


21 

ortiieiii  ever  preaclietl  from  a  text  whirh  may  Iip  found  in  Kxodus  xx.  IC.  And  again  on 
page  17,  it  is  said,  "Brotlier  Kennedy  re-aftirrntd  in  presence  of  ihcni  all  wiiat  they  had 
promised,  as  he  had  infonned  me  from  them,  and  no  man  denied  it."  Why  will  men 
be  so  disengenuous?  Mr.  Kennedy  re-alTirmed  ««  snrh  thing;  but  wlten  repeatedly 
urged  by  Dr.  Capers  to  speak,  he  ni.-ide  some  remarks  which  were  deemed  incorrect, 
and  as  soon  as  he  tlnished,  IMr.  Kirkwood  arose  to  put  him  right,  when  the  Reverend 
Doctor  took  his  hat  and  walked  ovt  oftht:  church  while  the  gentleman  was  speaking. 

"On  Sunday  the  Stli  December,  while  my  mind  was  in  great  agony,"  &c.  page  20. 
Perhaps  we  can  give  a  better  reason  for  this  "great  agony,"  than  the  one  assigned  by  the 
doctor.  A  meeting  of  the  male  members  of  the  church  in  Columbia,  was  held  a  few  days 
previous  to  this  date,  on  the  subject  of  our  church  difficulties,  which  was  attended  by 
members  of  the  Legislature  from  various  parts  of  the  ^^tate,  who  were  members  of  the 
church,  (that  body  then  being  in  session,)  and  some  resolutions  passed  not  very  grateful 
to  the  doctor's  feelings.  These  resolutions  were  forwarded  to  him,  sealed,  in  a  letter 
from  the  chairman  of  the  meetinjr,  requesting  that  the  pnp(!r  might  be  open<d  and  read 
only  at  a  tneetitin;  of  the  members.  \Ve  have  incontcstible  evidence,  that  this  docu- 
ment was  given  to  Dortor  Capers  on  llu>  same  "Sunday,  the  8th  December;"  but  i( 
7iever  was  read  to  the  mevibers;  nor  did  we  ever  hear  of  it  throvgh  him.  May  not 
the  reading  of  this  document  have  produced  the  "agony.''"  Out  we  liave  introduced  this 
paragraph  to  remark  upon  some  of  its  misstatements.  Speaking  of  the  meeting  at  Mr. 
Honour's  house,  he  says,  his  "proposition  was  acceded  to,  and  the  paper  being  signed, 
the  citations  were  withdrawn;"  leaving  the  natural  inference  that  the  paper  was  signed 
in  his  presence,  and  the  citations  withdrawn  that  night;  but  such  was  not  the  fact.  The 
members  positively  refused  to  sign  the  paper,  and  l>r.  Capers  left  the  room  without  a 
single  signature  being  affixed  to  it  ;  obser\ing  as  he  went  out  in  an  apparent  "agony," 
"Brethren  you  may  not  care  about  being  expelled  from  the  church,  but  I  do;  and  I  can- 
not, and  will  not  expel  you;^''  and  his  making  this  remark,  together  with  the  feelings 
manifested  by  him,  were  the  only  reasons  why  the  members  signed  it  at  all,  one  of  them 
observing,  "Let  us  sign  it,  for  if  we  refuse  any  longer,  it  will  kill  Brother  Capers."  He 
then  followed  the  doctor,  and  informed  him  that  the  paper  would  be  signed.  The  doctor 
immediately  returned  to  the  house,  and  then  made  the  \oluntary  promises  mentioned  in 
our  former  pamphlet,  and  which  we  repeat,  he  never  fulfilled!  He  then  left  the  house. 
The  next  morning  the  citations  were  withdrawn,  but  the  paper  was  not  delivered  to  him 
until  the  Tuesday  following.  There  is  no  "deficiency  of  memory,"  no  "morbid  imagi- 
nation," but  the  plain  sober  truth  respecting  these  promises;  and  when  "Mr.  Knight,  Mr. 
Kingman  and  Mr.  Honour,  called  at  the  I'arsonage,"  they  announced  themselves  as  a 
committee,  though  he  pretends  not  to  know  in  what  capacity  ihey  called,  and  told  him 
very  distinctly,  that  they  were  sent  to  request  the  return  of  the  paper  signed  at  INIr.  Hon- 
our's house,  and  gave  as  a  reason,  that  he  had  failed  to  fulfil  his  promise,  (oath  if  he 
pleasss.)  'i"he  statement  on  pages  20,  21,  about  his  entreating  us  to  spare  ourselves, 
our  wives  and  children;  and  the  reply  to  Mr.  fiodfrey's  question,  that  the  church  could 
not  connive  at  what  we  had  done,  reads  very  prettily,  and  is  well  calculated  for  ef- 
fect, but  unfortunately,  it  is  nothing  but  a  "rhetorical  flpurish;"  no  such  words  were 
ever  used.  The  paper  was  signed  purely  from  "kindness  to  the  feelings  of  the  ministry," 
and  we  also  "appeal  to  the  evidence  furnished  on  the  face  of  the  original  document,  t» 
prove"  that  such  was  the  fact.  He  did  entreat  us  to  apare  him,  and  put  it  in  his  power 
to  undo  what  he  had  done;  that  is  to  withdraw  the  citations;  and  in  confirmation  of  this, 
he  stated  to  se\eral  of  the  signers  the  next  morning,  th;il  he  had  received  a  letter  from 
Mr.  Kennedy,  iir<;in:r  him  not  to  bring  ns  to  trial.     Will  he  publish  this  letter? 

In  the  preface  to  the  book  it  is  stated  (and  the  initials  of  Dr.  Capets  and  Mr.  Kenne- 
dy are  affixed  to  it)  that  "near  the  close  of  the  month  of  November  last,  the  minister 
then  in  charge  deemed  it  proper  to  lay  before  the  members  of  the  church,  a  succinct  ac- 
count of  the  rise  and  pro;^rcss  of  these  difliculties  in  the  church  up  to  that  time.  This  ac- 
count, which  was  furnished  to  the  members  generally,  was  never  contradicted  j«  any 
of  its  statements;  but,  as  far  as  wc  have  understood,  was  admitted  on  all  hands  to  1><.' 
faithful  in  its  farts."  And  again  on  page  9,  "jVtmp  o/ «/.«.•  statemmts  were  con- 
tradicted at  that  time,  nor  subsequently  to  my  knowledge  ;  on  the  contrary,  I  under- 
stood from  various  quarters,  up  to  the  time  of  my  leaving  Charleston,  that  you  all  admit- 
ted it  to  be  a  faithful  account  of  tlu-  transactions  therein  set  forth."  Thi.>  we  positive- 
ly afiirm  to  bo  untrue;  instead  of  its  being  admitted  on  all  hands  to  be  faithful  in  its 
facts,  wc  constantly  asserted  that  many  of  the  statements  wen?  incorrect;  and  wc  said 
ea  in  ibe  n^iines'  and  ino>;«  niifriiii\  oral  manner  to  "Mr  Kenn<'i'v.  \>IieM  lirvr  r>n  Dr.    Ca 


25 

l)eis'  inviiation  iu  November  last.  Will  he  deny  ii?  And  do  not  these  Reverend  gen- 
tlemen know  that  a  repli^  to  the  pamphJet  was  in  preparation,  and  nearly  ready  for 
the  press,  and  its  publication  pic\  ented  only  in  consequence  of  the  arrangement  which 
took  place  at  tlie  meeting  held  at  Mr.  Honour's  house  ou  the  evening  of  the  Sth 
December! 

On  page  10  is  the  following: — "Some  time  on  Monday,  the  2Slh  October,  I  was  told  by 
an  old  and  respectable  member  of  the  church,  that  he  had  reason  to  apprehend  the  young 
men's  prayer  meeting  in  Trinity  School  Uoom  on  Tuesday  evenings  had  been  turned  in- 
to a  sort  of  caucus  meeting,  where  certain  revolutionary  measures  wore  agitated."  That 
such  "caucus  meetings"  were  held,  we  give  the  most  unqualitied  contradiction,  the  ap- 
prehensions of  the  "old  and  respect.ililo  member,"  to  tlie  contrary  notwithstanding. 
The  first  meeting  ever  held  in  Trinity  iSohool  Kooni,  wason  the  evening  of  the  29th 
October,  at  which  Dr.  Capers  was  present.  It  is  perfectly  well  known  that  all  our  meet- 
ings were  held  witii  open  doors;  and  on  every  occasion  some  of  Dr.  Capers'  friends  were 
either  at  the  door  or  windows;  and  so  devoid  of  common  decency  were  these  persons, 
that  when  gentlemen  finished  speaking,  they  would  hiss  or  clap  their  hands  as  if  in  a 
Theatre.  Strange  indeed,  that  "revolutionary  measures"  should  be  "agitated"  in  a 
public  building  with  open  doors. 

With  regard  to  what  is  said  on  pages  6  and  7,  respecting  our  reasons  for  not  impeaching 
Dr.  Capers  at  the  .Annual  Conference,  we  shall  only  say  this  much:  If  the  doctor  is  in 
earnest  iu  his  expressions  of  doubt  rc:<pectiiig  our  statement,  we  refer  him  to  two  of  his  own 
Bishops, — Andrew  and  I'n)ory.  Ask  them  what  was  said  at  the  lirst  conference,  which 
was  held  with  the  "Schismatics,"  (a  connnittee  of  nine)  and  why  ihey  urged  his  pres- 
ence as  they  did;  they  may  bring  to  his  recollection  the  reason  why  he  so  jiertinaciously 
refused  to  go  into  the  room,  although  Bishop  Andrew,  at  the  request  of  Bishop  Emory, 
went  out  and  urged  his  attendance. 

In  a  note  on  page  10,  Dr.  Capers  remarks — "It  is  a  pity  that  those  who  seek  so  hard 
to  justify  themselves,  should  make  matter  .'or  fresh  objections;  perhajis  it  is  a  pity  to  ob- 
ject to  them,  but  justice  obliges  usto  notice  a  particularly  glaring  impropriety  iu  giving 
part  for  the  tr/jo/r,  of  the  resolutions  passed  by  the  iJoard  (of  Trustees;")  and  then 
follows  a  resolution  of  the  Trustees  notifying  the  committee  where  the  keys  of  the  church- 
es might  be  found,  if  f/ifj/ should  "think  proper  to  have  the  alterations  made."  It  is  a 
"pity"  that  Dr.  Capers  had  not  read  over  bis  first  pamphlet,  before  he  wrote  this  note; 
he  would  have  saved  himself  from  the  charge  of  gross  inconsistency.  Does  he  not  know 
that  this  resolution  of  the  Trustees  was  a  mere  feint.'  What  authority  had  the  commit- 
tee to  make  alterations  in  the  churches.'  Had  the  Quarterly  Conference  appointed  them 
to  have  the  work  done?  The  reader  will  please  refer  to  the  doctor's  letter  to  tlie  com- 
mittee, in  his  republished  pamphlet  page  1  i,  and  he  will  find  the  following.  "You  seem 
to  consider  this  (the  object  of  your  appointment,)  as  having  been  that  you,  in  the  name 
of  the  Quarterly  Conference,  should  etfecl  the  change  of  the  sittings  in  the  churches;  but 
such  was  not  the  object  of  the  Quarterly  Conference.^'  ^'.flny  change  apjiertain- 
ing  to  the  buildings,  teas  appropriate  to  the  functions  of  the  Board  of  Trustees.'^ 
"You  were  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  formally  communicating  to  the  Trustees,  the  re- 
quest of  the  Conference,  respecting  the  sittings  for  Iree  coloured  people,  and  for  the  pur- 
pose of  obviating  the  dithculty,  which  it  had  been  suggested  might  arise,  from  the  Trus- 
tees not  having  money  in  hand  to  defray  the  expense  of"the  contemplated  change."  "The 
duties  appropriate  to  your  appointment,  farther  than  representing  the  wish  of  the  Confer- 
ence to  the  Board  of  Trustees,  as  above  stated,  were  wholl}'  contingent,  and  consisted  in 
this,  that  in  case  the  Trustees  should  be  unable  to  furriish  fnotici/  for  the  loork,  yoU 
were  to  raise  it  for  them  by  subscriptio7i.  The  resolution  under  which  you  were  ap- 
pointed, proves  explicitly  that  7io  other  duties  lucre  assigned  you." 

With  regird  to  what  Dr.  Capers  chooses  to  term  our"oirenccs  towards  the  church;" 
"forming  factions  in  the  church;"  "getting  our  parly  ready  for  action;"  "abusing  the 
charity  of  the  preachers"  &c.  &c.  &c.  we  let  pass  for  just  as  much  as  they  are  worth. 
Enough  has  been  said  to  prove  most  incontestibly  to  every  unprejudiced  mind,  that  our 
former  statements  are  facts;  and  that  we  have  been  most  shamefully  vilified  and  misrep- 
resented. We  are  perfectly  satisfied  that  the  "tie  that  has  bound  between  us"  should  be 
severed.  We  rejoice  to  know  that  there  is  "One  who  judges,"  and  cordially  unite  with 
Dr.  Capers  in  this  one  thing,  to  commit  our  cause  into  His  hands. 


IIFJOLNDEII  CONIINrKI). 


Ill  our  vfply  to  Dr.  Capers,  \vn  liavc  necessarily  iiitrodueed  several  parts  of  llic  "Ex- 
position com  iniied,"  a  produelion  from  the /in/jri/j// pen  of  Mr.  Ceorgo  F.  Pierce,  de- 
i^igned  forelVecl,  and  supported  by  the  fostering  hands  of  Messrs.  Kennedy  and  Martin. 
We  will  now  particularly  direct  our  attention  to  the  "continuation"  of  the  "narrative," 
(although  the  suicidal  character  of  the  new  work  is  manifest  to  our  viewl  and  for  truth 
sake,  shew  that  the  Scriptures  arc  true,  althou-^li  men  may  in;  f.ill'ble,  that  indeed  "all 
are  not  Israel,  who  are  of  Israel."  The  ntc-sity  of  this  lemark  is  painful,  and  although 
the  force  of  that  exclamation,  "()  that  mine  enemy  would  write  a  book,"  has  never  be- 
fore been  presented  to  us  in  such  glowing  colours,  as  it  does  in  this  instance,  yel  we  pro- 
fess (if  "Sffii.tmatics^'  can  be  believed)  not  to  rejoice  that  such  an  evil  has  come  upon 
our  enemies.  We  repeat  it,  we  believe  the  book  works  its  own  destruction;  but  wliilc 
its  sponsors 

With  Parthian  art,  shoot  arrows  as  they  fly, 
Intent  on  killing,  though  themselves  should  die, 

we  feel  it  a  duty  wc  owe  to  truth,  to  society  and  to  our  friends,  again  to  buckle  on  our 
armour,  and  while  our  chief  efforts  shall  be  of  a  defensive  character,  we  will  be  ready  for 
offensive  measures,  when,  and  we  trust  only  when,  the  necessity  of  the  ease  shall  de- 
mand it. 

The  Ilevcrend  gentlemen  commence  with  remarks  on  the  proceedings  of  the  Quarterly 
Conference,  in  reference  to  the  motion  for  an  examination  of  the  books  of  the  Trustees; 
this  will  be  treated  of  in  it»  proper  place,  (and  we  trust  satisfactorily  so)  in  our  notice  of 
the  "Appendix,"  signed  by  the  Trustees,  to  which  we  ask  the  serious  attention  of  llie 
reader. 

The  next  subject  which  they  bring  into  view,  is  one  to  which  we  also  invite  the  parti- 
cular notice  of  our  readers;  it  is  one  on  which  the  right  or  wrong,  the  truth  or  fallacy 
of  the  statements  on  both  sides  depend;  one  which,  when  rightly  understood,  will  de- 
velope  the  true  character  of  the  whole  controversy,  according  to  our  humble  opinion,  and 
prove  inconteslibly,  that  a  ■l)ook  of  a  hundred  and  more  pages,  lias  been  published  more 
with  a  view  of  concealing  facts,  by  the  mullifaiioiis  character  of  extraneous  matter  which 
has  been  thrust  into  it,  than  with  any  rightful  expectation  of  acquittal,  in  the  judgment  of 
a  discerning,  and  impartial  public.  We  allude  to  the  paper  submitted  by  the  Bishop,  to 
the  church  (page  31  Exposition  continued.) 

In  orderto  aid  in  a  proper  understanding  of  the  case,  it  will  be  well  perhaps  to  present 
a  brief  synopsis  of  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  tiilliculties  in  the  church,  up  to  the  time 
when  this  papor  was  ^/ruu^ji  and  submitted  by  the  Bishop,  and  which  led  to  the  pro- 
position contained  in  it.  The  outlines  are  these  — The  mulattoes,  or  a  certain  set  of 
them,  had  encroached  on  the  privileges  of  the  white  mend)ers;  their  arrogance  was  re- 
buked by  thrusting  them  from  the  seats  they  occupied.  Dr.  Capers',  who  had  advised 
the  measure,  and  suggi;sted  the  node  of  doing  it  (by  a  call  of  the  (juard)  rebuked  the 
brethren  for  executing  it;  the  matter  was  referred  to  the  Cinartcrly  Conference;  the  Con- 
ference adopted  a  resolution,  supported  by  tin;  Doctor  and  the  Presiding  Elder,  directing 
the  Trustees  to  make  such  alterations  as  would  prevent  similar  outrages  in  future.  The 
committee  appointed  by  the  Conference  requested  a  call  of  the  lioard  of  Trustees;  the 
call  was  made;  the  committee  attended,  and  were  told  there  was  no  quorum — one  more 
was  necessary — one  more  could  have  attended  (Mr.  .S.  J.Wagner,)  if  he  had  employed 
the  time  ingoing  to  the  meeting,  which  he  occupied  in  writing  a  long  letter  explanatory 
of  his  objections  to  enforce  the  resolutions  of  the  Conference,  the  chief  of  which  was  the 
loss  of  peace  which  the  Church  would  sustain,  if  the  mulattoes  were  oflended;  the  objec- 
tion was  potent;  the  Committee  were  told  by  Dr.  Capers,  that  he  would  converse  with 
the  mulatto  chiefs,  Ilolloway,  Clark  and  others,  on  the  subject;  if  they  agreed,  well — if 
not,  nothing  ought  to  be  done.  Ilolloway,  (a  coloured  man)  called  on  him,  remonstrat- 
ed against  the  acts  of  the  Conference,  and  threatened  to  leave  the  church  if  the  altera- 
tions were  made:  nothing  was  done — the  members  sought  redress,  and  found  it  could  on- 
ly be  obtained  through  the  exercise  of  their  chartered  rights;  they  resorted  to  the  act  of 
incorporation;  were  resisted  by  the  Doctor  and  Trnstees;  cited  to  trial  for  "disobedience 


to  the  order  aud  discipline  olliie  cliurch;"  refused  a  trial  before  tlie  society;  vvlieedled 
into  the  signing  a  paper  by  tears  and  solicitations,  which  effected  a  suspension  of  further 
proceedings  until  the  arriv;il  of  the  Bishop  in  the  city.  Previous  to  this,  however,  the 
paity  of  the  Doctor  and  old  Trustees,  busily  employed  themselves  in  defaming  the  cor- 
porators, (so  called);  the  I'arsonage  had  become  a  ''School  for  scandal;"  "godly  men 
tmd  women,"  were  continually  pouring  surmises  and  reports  into  the  eare  of  the  preach- 
ers; Dr.  Capers  hiuisclf  declared  to  one  of  the  committee,  that  scarcely  an  hour  passed, 
but  some  one  carried  him  intelligence  of  evil  intentions  against  himself;  to  one  of  his  in- 
formers, he  himst.'lf  gave  tliacognomcn  of  "tcifnanaitt;"  the  church  tottered;  at  this 
juncture  the  liisliop  arrivedV  and  entering  liy  oin  7-equtst  into  an  investigation  of  the 
troubles  in  the  church,  held  fri  (jucnt  consultations  witli  both  parties,  or  their  representa- 
tives, separately,  and  finally  proposed,  what  appeared  to  him  a  sure  basis  for  the  peaceful 
adjustment  of  every  dilliculty.  We  believed  he  was  honest;  we  have  never  doubted  it; 
we  professed  to  desire  nothing  that  the  discipline,  fairly  and  eqnifahly  adntinistercd, 
could  condemn;  we  were  honest  in  oj/r  professions,  and  in  proof  of  being  so.  agreed  so- 
lemnly to  abide  the;  decision  of  the  Bishops  on  the  matters  in  question,  be  that  decision 
what  it  li'ould:  we  had  previously  to  this,  put  into  the  hands  of  the  Bishop,  such  evi- 
dence of  what  our  intentions.were,  with  such  proof  of  the  extent  to  which  our  claims  un- 
der the  act  of  incorporation  would  be  carried,  that  he  was  not  only  satisfied,  but  positive- 
ly, aud  in  the  presence  of  more  than  one,  said  (in  reply  to  a  direct  question  from  one  of 
the  committee  whether  the  proceedings  already  had,  or  which  were  proposed  to  be  had 
under  the  organization  of  the  r2lh  November,  and  2d  December,  1833,  were  a  violation 
ofthe  discipline)  "Brethren,  I  perceive  a  great  difficulty  in  the  church  here, hut  it  is 
at  together  with  the  members;  \{  cither  party  \\oa\d  yield  the  aifficuify  would  vajiish." 
The  proof  of  this  is  within  the  reach  of  the  gentlemen;  we  give  it  fearless  of  contradic- 
tion; it  is  the  language  of  Dr.  .John  r.mory,  a  Bishop  of  the  Jifethvdist  Rpiscopal 
Church;  a  man  whom  we  believe  to  be  above  the  little  artifices  practiced  by  some  who 
occupy  a  less  elevated  station.  While  on  this  subject,  we  will  mention  another  declara- 
tion ofthe  Bishop,  lest  we  should  omit  it  hereafter;  we  think  it  essential,  because  we 
have  heard  from  some  who  have  read  the  ])amphlet  ofthe  gentlemen,  that  it  appeared  to 
them  it  was  contrary  to  melhodism  to  have  churches  incorporated;  it  was  this — ftlr. 
A n,  a  gentleman  ofthe  Bar,  who  was  present  at  one  of  our  interviews,  by  there- 
quest  of  the  liishop,  enquired  if  it  was  contrary  to  the  discipline  of  the  IMethodist  F-pisco- 
pal  Church,  or  if  it  contravened  any  rale,  or  subverted  any  part  of  their  economy,  to  ad- 
mit of  incorporations  in  their  churches.'  The  Bishop's  answer  was  cnipliatically,  "No, 
we  have  churches  incorporated  in  various  parts  ofthe  country."  The  evidences  in  sup- 
port of  this,  are  Messrs.  \V.  Laval  and  J.  II.  Honour,  and  J.  A n,  H.  B y,  Es- 
quires, Attorneys  at  Law,  of  the  one  part;  and  Bishop  Emory,  Henry  Bass,  P.  E.  and 
AV.  M.  Kennedy,  preacher  in  charge,  on  the  other  part.*  If  further  proof  be  necessary 
on  this  point,  we  offer  one  whose  testimony  will  be  conclusive  with  the  sponsors  ofthe 
"Exposition  continued,"  at  least.  We  call  on  Dr.  Capers.  In  page  13,  line  10,  ofthe 
"Exposition,"  he  says,  "a  meeting  of  the  male  members,  as  a  corporation,  we  were  de- 
cided not  to  call,  on  purely  legal  grounds.'"  And  again  in  a  note  on  same  page,  he 
says,  "If  it  be  asked,  why  I  called  a  meeting  of  the  corporation  some  si.x  or  seven 
years  ago,  if  its  existence  was  so  doubtful,  my  answer  is,  I  am  not  a  hiwyer.  and  was  not 
informed  on  a  legal  question,  till  I  got  legal  advice."  A  full,  clear,  and  undeniable  ad- 
mission, tliat  the  discii)line  did  not  sulfer  violence  by  incorporations.  "But  the  charter 
was  void;""  so  say  Rlessrs.  ymith  and  (Mimke;  doctors  will  differ.  Pray,  gentlemen,  did 
either  or  both  of  you  ever  beguile  a  tedious  moment  in  looking  over  the  second  volume 
of  Kent"s  Commentaries,  title  corporations,  pp.  251,252?  The  evidence  there  makes 
iiard  against  your  ex  parte  statement. 

The  disci|)line  then  does  not  restrict  corporation  in  its  churches.  So  says  Bishop 
Emory;  so  says  Dr.  Capers;  so  writes  Dr.  Bangs;  so  the  General  Conference  determined; 
(ALL  METHODISTS;)  SO  Say  the  facts  existing  in  v;uious  States  and  Territories,  known 
and  afTirmed  by  centlcmen  of  this  city  and  others,  visitors. 

Having  established  i\\\<  point,  which  the  disingenuousncss  ofthe  gentlemen  alone  has 
made  doubtful  to  a  few,  we  proceed  to  examine  the  second  point  in  the  case;  which  in 
our  view  is  this:     Were  the  acts  ofthe  "Schismatics"  "palpable  violations  of  the   dis- 

*  Justice  to  15isluip  Emory,  w  lio  had  said  that  to  be  nsrful,  he  mnst  avoid  becoming  a  partisan, 
dcniand.s  of  us  ifip  acKiiuwltdgenient,  that  ho  carefully  avoided  any  departure  from  this  rule  in 
his  conference  with  u.-<,  as  far  ns  was  prarticabl'',  considering  the  questions  A\liich  were  pro. 
jxiunded  to  him  fri'in  time  1"  time. 


28 

ciplincr"  The  Ufvcrciid  gcuileuicn  .iliinn  they  were;  and  ufier  au  exordium  of  vulgar 
abuee,  and  vilifying  ppilhets,  discreditable  to  ^fntlemen,  and  much  more  Kcrlcsiastics; 
after  borrowing  from  the  kennels  all  tiic  slanj;  terms  peculiar  to  lowness  of  breeding,  and 
pouring  them  in  unmeasured  wrath  upon  our  heads;  after  denouncing  us,  (some  of  wjjom 
nave  more  than  twice  told  the  years  which  two  of  them  have  seen)  as  "Sciiismatics," 
''adepts  in  cunning;'' "practising  chicanery ;"  "unjust;"  "gladiators;"  "culprits;"  &r. 
&c.  &c.  they  gravely  produce  the  following  charge  and  specifications  in  support  of  the 
case  so  modestly  presented:  viz. 

"Charge.     Disohclienoe  to  the  order  nnd  discipline  of  the  church. 

Specification  1st.  Tnkiiij;  n  pari  in  anifctinc.  ■  ailing  itself  the  church  in  its  corporate  capaci- 
ty, and  which  aJl.snm^s  ih"  right  to  do  away  at  plrn>iiirc  4ho  ordT  and  modoii  of  managfrnent 
prescribed  by  tlie  disciphne,  to  remove  from  ofTicc  the  Truwiccs;  to  fill  their  places,  change  their 
respon.sibility.  fee. 

Specification  2d.  Receiving  appointment  as  Trust'H'.^  under  the  assumed  authority  of  said 
meetinp.  thus  organizing  a  Board  for  the  transaction  of  the  business  of  the  church,  in  opposition 
to  the  Board  appointed  under,  and  acknowledge<l  by  th''  discipline. 

Specification  3d.  After  a  written  avowal  of  your  determination,  not  to  perform  any  acts  that 
would  he  a  pnlpalde  violation  of  the  discipline,  and  after  having  received  from  the  Prcarherm 
charge  a  dfciniun,  declaring  the  course  you  havi;  adopte<l<,  to  be  a.pulpable  violation  of  discipline, 
you  have  gone  tu  la\v  \\  ith  ih.;  Truftecs,  by  levying  on  the  property  of  one  of  their  tenants,  thus 
giving  evidence  of  n  determination  to  pursue  your  own  course,  in  defiance  of  the  conMituted  au- 
thoritii  rif  (he  chuTch. 

WM.M.  KKNNEDY, 
WM  .MARTIN, 
G.  F.  PIERCE. 

Methodist  Parsonage,  July  28,  1831. 

After  this  unaccountable  discrepancy  between  their  words  and  actions,  their  assertions, 
pledges,  appeals,  and  abuse;  and  the  matters  set  forth  in   their  cliargo  and  specifications, 
amounting  at  most  to  the  sin  of  denying  (w/«//(6i7//y  in  Mr.  Kennedy,  (wiiich   we  will 
.show  we  were  right  in  doing)  the  gentlemen,  instead  of  pursuing  the  subject,  by  adducing 
the  proof  necessary  to  substantiate  their  cliMige.  indulge  themselves  in  a  mirthful  digres- 
sion:    Their  favorite  pastime  oi  abuse  is  taken  up,  and  we  are  cliarged  with  insidiousat- 
tempts  to  defeat  the  church  trial,  by  changing  the  day  of  trial    before  the    Magistrate's 
court,  from  Wednesday  to  Tuesday,  (see  page  46  of  their  book.)     Fie,  gentlemen!  such 
sportiveness  is  unbecoming  your  profession,  besides,  it  is  hazardous;  jou  have   ventured 
on  dangerous  ground;  your  play-fellows  have  unwittingly  tun;bled  you  into  the   very    pit 
which  they  dug  for  you  to  thrust  us  in.     Changed  (he  day  of  (rial!     Yes,  we  acknow- 
ledge the  fact;  we  did  change  the  day  of  trial  in  one  sense;  not  as  "an  insidious  attempt 
to  defeat  the  church  trial,"  but  as  an  open  expression  of  our  indignation  at  the    insidious 
attempts  you  made,  to  defeat  the  Court  trial,     ^^'ednesday  was  not  the  day    first   ap- 
pointed, but  Tuesday;  and   as  it  was  deemed  important  that  we  should  be   put  out   of 
the  church  before  tiie  trial  could  take  place,  Mr.  Abel  M'Kee  and  Mr.  Samuel  J.  Wag- 
ner, (two  Trustees)  waited  on  their  Attorney,  and  persuaded  hiin  to  procure  the  consent 
of  our  counsel,  to  have  the  trial  postponed  til!  Wednesday:  and    he,    not  suspecting  the 
device,  yielded  to  the  solicitation,  and  authorised  the  postponement,  u-hen  we  immedi- 
ately received  our  citations  for 'V\jksv  ay.     One   of  our   committee   calling   on  our 
counsel    to   state    the   attempt  which  had  been  made  to  interrupt  our  attendance  at   the 
court,  learned  for  the  first  time,  what  had  been  done;  we  then  insisted,  that  the  day  first 
named  by  the  Magistrate,  should  be  the  day  for  the  trial;  and  to  prevent  the  preachers 
from  meeting  and  thrusting  us  out  of  the  church,  for  non-attendance  at  the  Parsonage,  (as 
we  had  good  reason  to  suppose  they  would)  we  had  them  cited  to  attend  the  Court  on 
Tuesday.     Intent  however,  on  their  purpose,  they    itistructed  their   Attorney,  to   arrest 
the  trial,  which  was  eflected  by  a  legal  process,  that  took  the  case  from  the  Magistrate's 
court,  into  a  Superior  Court,  which  iias  not  yet  met.     This  is  the  manner  in  which   we 
were  "foiled,"  as  the  Reverend  gentlemen  assert  we  were:  we  prefer  it  much  t«  the  tri- 
umph they  obtained,  a  triumph  somewhat  tarnished  by  the  loss  of  reputation,  for  the  Ma- 
gistrate emphatically  declared  from  the  Bench,  that  the  arrest  of  proceedings  in  his  court, 
was   eflfected    by  a  ^'breach  of  faith  on  the  part  of  the  defendant.^'     Quere. — Who 
are  the  Defendants  now?     (See  page  47,  lines  3  to  10,  of  "E.xposilion  continued.") 

With  a  consistency  cquil  to  that  just  noticed,  the  gentlemen  have  hopped,  skipped  and 
jumped  from  pagcol  of  their  Look,  to  the  COih,  backwards  and  forwards,  like  little  wan- 
ton boys  who  pluy  unmindful  of  the  tusk  before  them;  they  first  try  to  establish  their  right 
by  promising  to  do  so,  then  make  the  attempt;  discover  that  it  is  onerous  and  perplex- 
iiyg:  cavil  at  words  because  the  signification  dont  suit  their  views;  are  filled  with  ire:  snf- 


29 

tor  jiassioii  lousurp  the  place  ol' reason,  wound  icligiou,  drag  young  and  old_before' their 
potential  bar,  and  doom  them  all  to  woe  remediless.  (Forgive  us  our  trespasses,  as  we 
forgive  them  that  trespass  against  us.) 

The  next  gambols  of  the  gentlemen,  are  to  be  found  on  page  53  of  their  "Oniniunt 
(jatherum;"  the  versatility  of  their  genius  is  tiierc  admirably  displayed,  and  the  facile 
manner  in  which  they  change 

"From  grave  lo  gny,  from  lively  to  severe" 

is  happily  illustrative  oi  ivcU  trained  minds.  The  little  discrepancies  which  are  discov- 
erable occasionally  between  the  grave  rebukes,  and  the  listless  practice  of  like  offences, 
is  but  the  sportiveness  of  exuberant  imagination.  The  exhibition  of  the  note  or  "letter" 
to  the  "woman,"  "a  widow,"  is  also  ingeniously  introduced  to  heighten  the  illusion,  and 
continue  the  variation  of  "lights  and  shadows."  ('J"he  writer  of  that  letter,  takes  this 
opportunity  to  say,  that  in  a  moment  of  anxious  solicitation  by  a  friend,  he  yielded  his 
own  judgment,  and  did  that  which  has  been  to  him  from  the  moment  aficr  he  sent  it,  to 
the  present  time,  a  cause  of  deep  and  sincere  regret;  it  was  following  a  bad  precedent.) 
The  adroit  manner  in  which  they  evade  the  motive  for  introducing  the  letter  in  the 
book,sho\vs  them  to  be  gentlemen  of  considerable  tact,  and  deep  penetration.  There- 
quest  "to  be  let  alone,"  is  decyphered  by  them  to  mean,  not  to  be  abused:  that  would 
indeed  be  hoping  against  hope;  it  would  have  been  asking  a  rest,  which  '■'hope,  when 
bidding  us  he  of  good  cotirage,^'  never  promised;  and  which  "fanci/  i>i  the  splen- 
dour of  its  brightness,  dazzling  vsivith  our  gilded  chains,"  never  once  cheered  us 
with  the  expectation  of  obtaining.  The  gentlemen  do  themselves  and  their  friends  great 
injustice,  in  supposing  that  we  would  suspect  them  for  a  moment,  of  being  idle,  whilst  a 
reformed  church  was  rising  full  in  their  view.  The  liistory  of  reform  in  i3altimore,  and 
that  in  Cieorgia  and  Alabama,  &c.  satisfied  us  fully  on  that  point.  ^^  e  have  some  oftho 
accounts  in  our  possession,  and  the  recital  of  o?je  occurrence,  in  Baltimore  particularly, 
will  speak  more  on  this  occasion,  than  all  we  have  written:  we  reserve  it  with  other  mat- 
ter for  future  use.  Our  meaning  was  expressed  in  very  simple  language;  it  suited  the 
humbleness  of  our  views;  we  only  asked  in  behalf  of  those  who  instructed  us  to  do  so, 
(\\c  had  no  hope  of  such  favours  for  ourselves)  not  to  be  fl.ittcrcd  by  the  o-i7(/erf  prospect 
of  being  again  allowed  to  go  in  and  out  of  the  temple  with  the  "godly  men  and  tro- 
men"  who  had  been  so  miraculously  rescued  by  the  timely  "sifiing  of  the  wheat  from 
the  chaff."  But  it  was  an  incident;  and  however  incidental,  whether  relevant  to  their 
justification  or  not,  it  was  necessary  with  a  great  many  other  incidents  of  equal  irrelevan- 
cy, to  make  up  a  book;  and  a  book  was  necessary,  as  well  to  show  their  skill  in  manu- 
factures, as  to  inform  the  public,  that  the  good  old  tinies  had  returned,  when  Preachers 
were  once  more  released  from  the  vulgar  obligation  of  practicing  their  own  precepts. 
We  may  be  wrong  in  this  conjecture;  if  so,  wc  apologise  by  charging  our  error  upon  that 
false  system  of  education  which  taught  us  to  trace  effects  to  their  cause  (if  practicable) 
and  if  not;  to  judge  of  causes  by  their  ell'ects. 

After  a  digression  which  in  our  ignorance  we  would  pronounce  unpardonable,  if  wc 
were  not  restricted  in  our  judgment  by  the  high  autliority  of  Messrs.  Kennedy,  RIartin 
and  Pierce,  that  "like  begets  like,'''  [which  according  to  the  new  dictionary  of  the 
young  .^manuetisis  of  Messrs.  Kennedy  and  Martin,  means,  "that  sin  is  sinless  because 
sinners  set  the  example;"]  we  return  to  the  subject,  and  again  enquire,  whether  the  acts 
oC  the  "}^ch\sma.Ucs,"  were  palpable  vivlatio?is  of  the  discipline  or  not.  In  our  ex- 
amination of  this  subject,  we  must  be  excused  for  not  following  the  gentlemen  in  their 
favourite  walks  of fanci/;  we  are  dull  prcsers,  and  prefer  an  honet^tfact  to  a  whole  book 
of  gilded  fictions.  What  then  are  the  facts.'  The  converse,  we  say,  of  all  that  is 
spread  throughout  the  whole  of  the  "Exposition,"  and  its  spurious  offspring  the  "Expo- 
sition continued."  Bold  as  this  assertion  may  seem,  we  venture  the  success  of  our  cause 
on  the  proofs  which  we  shall  adduce  in  support  of  it.  In  the  first  place,  the  bookciiarg- 
es  us  from  the  commencement  to  the  termination,  with  being  "Schismatics."  IVe  deny 
it.  According  to  Walker,  a  Schismatic  is  one  "\\\\c\  separates  himself  from  tlie  true 
church;"  now  we  either  f/if/ ?!of  separate  oiir.^elves  from  the  church,  ur  the  Reverend 
gentlemen  have  been  very  ^ir)e<?f  in  their  prose;  they  have  delighted  themselves  in  re- 
peatedly affirming  that  we  were"  CTpelled,"  and  that  those  who  resigned  only  escaped 
a  similar  fate  by  their  early  withdrawal.  The  Rev.  John  Wesley  defines  a  Schism  in 
the  church  to  be  "the  war.t  of  a  tender  care  for  each  other;"  we  deny  being  of  that 
class,  and  ask  the  gentlemen  to  judge  us  themselves,  he  that  is  least  sinful  among  them 
all  in  this  particular  casting  the  first  stone.  As  the  gentlemen  one  and  all,  evince  such 
satisfaction  in  branding  us  a  hundred  times  over  with  the  appellation  of  Schismatics,  they 


30 

must  not  be  ort'oiidid  It' wc  prove  that  ihu  lioiiour  of  being  such,  belongs  exclusively  to 
themselves,  and  tlii-ir  "frodly"  adlierenls;  \vc  liave  noarly  proved  it  already,  but  will 
offer  one  more  view  of  tin-  subjert.  We  go  to  the  root  of  the  mailer.  Perhaps  the  gen- 
tlemen know  that  the  word  is  derived  from  ihc  (Jreek  —  ifso,  lliey  know  tli.it  it  means  a 
"rent,  a  c'eft.  a  fissure;"  now  it  is  only  necessary  to  determine  what,  or  who  tli'^  power 
is,  or  was,  tiiat  caused  the  cleft,  and  made  the  rent  or  fissure,  to  enable  them  to  make 
the  right  application.  (Vide  causes  which  led  to  action  under  the  charter,  and  mock 
trials.) 

Once  more — The  celebrated  Dr.  (^ampbell  is  of  opinion,  that  Schism,  in  the  t^ciipluio 
sense,  often  means  that  alienation  of  affection  between  brethren,  which  violates  the  in- 
ternal union  subsisting  in  the  hearts  of  chri>tians.  Jiid^e  yc  yotn.idrex  in  this  n)atter; 
do  it  righteously,  and  \vc  are  content.  I'ul  thev  say  we  were  guilty  oi' palpable  vio- 
latiotis  of  the  discipline;  and  because  we  aflirmed  that  we  were  not,  and  could  give  a 
better  reason  for  the  denial  than  their  own  logic — that  it  is  so,  becau!>e  it  is  so,  they  met 
us  with  the  argument uin  ad  hotninum ,  that  we  were  ^^cllismatics  because  they  said  wc 
were;  and  in  confirmation  of  their  belief,  and  godly  abhorrence  of  our  heresy,  emptied 
their  Pandora's  bo.x  of  vile  abuse  full  on  our  devoted  heads. 

In  the  second  place,  the  book  charges  us  with  being  ail  that  is  vile,  abominable,  and 
offensive,  in  the  sight  of  heaven  and  men.  One  hundred  and  seventy  (170)  inmiortal 
souls,  some  of  whom  have  been  members  of  the  .Alctliodist  Kpiscopal  Church,  longer  tha:> 
two  of  the  denunciators  have  been  in  existence,  and  olhtsrs  twice  their  seniors  in  years, 
stand  charged  at  the  merciless  bar  of  these  three  Preachers,  with  ofiences  which,  if  true, 
must  e.Nclude  them  forever  from  the  kingdom  of  grace  and  glory,  (a  heavy  judgment  from 
men  who  teach  others  not  to  judge  le.st  they  be  judged.)  "(Jh  shame,  where  is  thy 
blush!"  The  evidence  produced  by  these  gentlemen,  in  .support  of  the  allegations  which 
they  make  against  these  "reckless"  beings,  is — first,  the  assertions  which  they  make  of 
their  being  so.  Secondly,  they  are  so,  because  we  have  complained  of  their  just  ad- 
ministration ofthe  discipline.  'I'liiidly,  they  are  so,  because  "«7  teas  tvorthy  of  rc- 
7nark,  that  the.y  had  7ievlr  ktiown  a  member  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
who  walked  with  God,  and  lived  above  censure,  that  found  fault  with  the  economy 
ofthe  church.'"  Fourthly,  they  must  be  so,  because  of  "personal  irregularities,^^ 
damning  heresies,  evidenced  by  our  claiming  under  the  discipline,  the  right  given  in  the 
act  of  incorporation  to  elect  (lie  Trustees  by  a  nicijority  ofthe  mate  members  of  the 
church.  And  lastly,  if  all  the  foregoing  prove  insufficient,  it  shall  be  so,  because  wc 
</rtre</ to  question  the  infallibility  of  Mr.  Kennedy's  decision  on  a  point  of  discipline, 
which  Bishop  r.mory,  after  consulting  with  L'ishnp  .Andn'w,  declined  adjudicating  with- 
out a  consultation  with  a  majority  ofthe  Bishops  ofthe  church  (si.x  in  number.)  From 
the  gentlemen's  own  showing,  (we  a|)peal  to  their  own  book)  it  is  conclusive  that  our 
ofiences,  first  and  last,  consisted  even  in  their  own  view,  in  persisting  to  act  under  the 
cliarter  incorporating  the  church.  For  proof  of  this,  see  letter  of  admonition,  page  44, 
and  charges  drawn  by  themselves,  pages  45  and  4(j  of  "E.xposition  continued."  It  is 
now  our  intention,  as  well  as  duty,  to  prove  incontestibly,  that  we  are  guiltless  of  any  of- 
fence against  the  discipline  ofthe  .Methodist  I'piscojial  Church;  unless  the  sin  of  question- 
ing the  correctness  of  the  decision  made  by  Mr.  Kennedy,  on  a  strictly  controverted 
point,  be  an  oflencc  against  it;  and  that  it  Wiis  not  a  "vaparous  bravado,"  which  made 
us  affirm,  that  we  had  high  authority  for  saying  we  were  right,  and  that  we  were  also  ia 
tlic  majority.  The  evidence  which  we  shall  adduce,  to  sui)porl  these  statements,  will  be 
both  positive  and  circumstantial;  the  adtiiission  of  one,  or  rejection  ofthe  other,  will  in* 
volve  the  gentlemen  in  an  awkward  dilemma;  but  they  have  our  hearty  consent  to  lay 
liold  on  either  horn  they  plcisc. 

1.  We  arc  not  guilty  of  "disobedience  to  the  or<lcr  and  discipline  ofthe  church,"  in 
the  first  place,  because  the  discipline  does  not  restrict  the  members  of  the  church  from 
the  porformancc  of  any  one  single  act  which  ims  been  specified  against  us;  the  gentlemen 
have  furnished  no  proof  to  the  contrary  of  this:  we  know  of  7ionc,  and  in  the  absence  of 
proof  the  charge  falls. 

2.  W'e  are  not  guilty  ofthe  charge  in  the  second  place,  because,  the  discipline  positive- 
ly does  provide  for  the  contingency  under  which  wc  acted,  in  a  clause  introduced  at  the 
General  Conferencehy  Dr.  Capers,  fi.xing  the  responsibility  of  the  Trustees,  occasioned 
by  a  collision  he  had  with  them,  and  amended  by  Dr.  Bangs  of  New- York,  expressly  to 
meet  the  contingency,  of  inco;7»()rrt<<Y/ c/a/rc/if 4,  (the  New- York  churches  generally 
being  incorporated.) 

^'    We  are  rot  guilty  nf  the  charge  in  the  third  place,,  because  the  rliurch  is  incorpora- 


31 

led:  i'lifl  svo  would  lespectrully  ask  ^rcssrs.  Siiiitli  andGiiniko,  if  liiey  ever  heard  of  a 
i^oiporatf  action,  un(!(!r  an  iiii/imitcil,  unrestricted  and  inicomUtional  rliavter,  being 
in\aiid  (if  vvitliin  liie  limits  of  the  act)  unless,  or  until,  some  liigii  judici-»i  tribunal, 
at  llio  instance,  01  in  the  name  of  the  power  granting  the  franchise,  had  adjudicated 
it  to  he  so? 

1.  \^  n  are  not  guihy  of  tlie  charge  in  the  fourth  phicc,  because  the  allegation  is  not 
made  for  acting  under  a  doubtful  charter,  but  of  "disobedience  to  the  order  and  discip- 
line of  the  cliurch;"and  the  church,  we  aretold,  consists  of  preachers,  exhorters,  ollicial 
and  lay  members,  (so  say  Dr.  Capers,  Mr.  Kennedy,  IMr.  Martin  and  Mr.  Pierce,)  and 
they  have  never  told  i/s  that  our  acts  were  a  disobedience  of  their  orders,  or  of  the  dis- 
cipline; (if  i'H'orrect,  wc  invite  the  proof  in  coniradiclion.) 

5.  \\  0  are  not  guilty  of  the  charge  in  the  fifth  place,  because  Bishop  Emorv,  who  was 
bound  by  a  solemn  oatli,  ('r>ndiiiinistered  at  the  time  of  his  installation^  to  preserve  atid 
enforce  the  discipline,  said  that  corporations  were  not  contrary  to  "tlie  order  and  discip- 
line of  the  church;"  and  that  the  acts  which  we  had  done,  and  proposed  doing,  under 
the  showing  of  our  by-laws,  &c.,  were  not  contrary  to  the  discipline;  and  that  they  would 
cease  to  be  a  cause  of  contention  in  the  church,  if  the  old  Trustees  would  cease  their 
opposition. 

We  leave  the  reader  to  determine  for  himself,  on  the  suthcienry  of  the  proofs  adduced 
in  support  of  our  plea  of  "not  guiltv  to  the  charge."  'I'he  spccilications  which  follow, 
are  so  dependent  on  the  charoe,  th;it  the  failure  of  one,  almost  necessarily  involves  the 
destruction  of  Uie  others.  \Ve  will,  however,  devote  a  few  moments  to  the  considera- 
tion of  them. 

The  first  alleges,  that  we  "took  a  part  in  a  meeting  calling  itself  the  church  in  its  cor- 
porate capacity;  and  which  assumes  the  right  to  do  away  at  pleasure,  the  order  and  modes 
of  management,  prescribed  by  the  discipline,  to  remove  from  oflicc  the  Trustees,  to  fill 
their  places,  change  their  responsibility,"  &c.  We  admit  that  we  did  take  part  in  the 
meeting,  which  not  only  called  itself  the  church  in  its  corporate  capacity,  but  which  was 
ipso  facto  the  corporation  itself;  convened  in  a  legal  wav,  and  transacting  its  business  ac- 
cording to  law,  and  the  usage  of  all  corporations;  assuming  nothing  but  what  the  law- 
guaranteed,  and  what  the  discipline  provides  for;  asserted  its  rights,  and  maintained  its 
dignity,  ever>  by  rebuking  and  putting  down  thcunsentle  atienipt  of  one  who,  until  then, 
had  arrogated  to  himself  the  right  of  uncontrolled  rule  over  the  church. 

'I'he  second  specification  charges  us  with  "receiving  appointment  as  Trustees  under 
the  assumed  authority  of  said  meeting;  thus  organizing  a  board  for  the  transaction  of  the 
business  of  the  church,  in  opposition  to  the  board  appointed  under,  and  acknowledged 
by  the  discipline." 

We  admit  that  we  did  receive  a.ppointiricnt  under  the  corporation;  not  at  the  "same 
meeting;"  nor  from  any  assumed  authority,  nor  in  opposition  to  any  board;  but  at  asub- 
sequent  meeting,  by  the  ?-ig-/i</i/Z  authority,  and  only  to  fill  vacancies  occasioned  by  the 
contumacy  of  those  who  refused  to  acknowledge  the  riglit  of  action  by  the  corporation, 
and  to  receive  appointment  under  it. 

The  third  and  last  specification  charges  "a  palpable  ^  iolution  of  discipline  on  us,  ia 
going  to  law  with  the  Trustees  by  levying  on  the  property  of  one  of  their  tenants,"  and 
this  "after  having  rccei\cd  from  the  preacher  in  charge  a  decisiori,  declaring  the  course 
we  had  adopted,  to  be  a  palpable  violation  of  the  discipline,  contrary  to  a  written  avowal 
of  our  determination  not  to  perform  any  acts  that  would  bo  such;  thus  giving  evidence  to 
pursue  our  own  course  in  defiance  of  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  church." 

Wc  deny  positivel}'  ever  having  gone  to  law  with  theTrustees  of  the  f/j?/rc/i,- the 
church  was  incorporated;  tlie  corporation  had  appointed  7/.s  its  Trustees,  in  lieu  of  the 
former  refractory  ones,  and  had  directed  us  to  manage  its  temporal  matters;.(see  by-laws 
of  the  corporation,  and  Dr.  (^apers'  first  pamphlet.)  W^e  levied  on  one  of  the  tenants  of 
the  corporation;  the  property  he  held,  was  bequeathed  to  the  church  in  its  corporate 
name.  Not  one  word  about  lha"Trustees  of  the  .^frlbodist  FJpiscopal  Church,  and 
to  their  succensors  in  office,  in  trust  for  the  church,"  as  the  gentlemen  have  so 
"rcclrlcssli/"  asserted  in  page  47  of  their  book,  is  to  befound  in  the  whole  will;  and  we 
know  that  they  examined  the  will  for  themselves,  and  look  extracts  from  it  before  their 
book  was  written;  [Mr.  Kennedy  certainly  did  so.]  And  even  if  it  had  been,  as  they 
so  palpably  misstate  it,  we  were  certainly  their  legal  successors.  We  deny  having  com- 
mitted any  palpable  violation  of  the  discipline  in  this  matter,  even  if  the  old  Trustees  were 
orticers  of  the  Quarterly  (Conference. 

The  gentlemen  in  this  matter,  as  in  several  others,  suflered  prudence  to  be  beguiled  by 


Si 

iiitcmpcrute  zeal,  'and  iccUoiicd  witlinul  Oioir  liosl."  '1  lie  cliurcli  either  **  incorpora- 
ted, or  it  is  n<'/.  ^\■e  give  lliem  the  cli»ice.  H'itfJ*  incorporated,  we  were  the  only 
persons  that  could  manage  lliat  piec  !  of  properly,  [willi  two  ol'iorloU  similarly  situated,! 
because  it  was  demised  to  the  ciMircli  by  its  corporate  i^,afi>e.  i\o  pi  rson  or  poi-sona, 
olficnr  or  oilicers,  trustees  or  agents,  were  mentioned  in,  or  authorised  by  the  will  to 
AoW  in /;■».'!/ for  the  church.  As  a  corporation,  it  had  ihe  right  and  the  po\v<r  to  take 
the  management  of  propeity  conveyed  to  it  as  such,  into  its  own  hands:  it  did  so,  and  we 
were  appointed  the  mauag(;rs  of  it. 

If  the  church  is  710/  incorporated,  then  the  old  Trustees,  with  the  sanction  of  the 
preachers,  have  arrogated  to  themselves  the  pow  er  of  holding  w  hat  rightly  belongs  to 
another;  not  only  ho/din^  vnlatrfully,  hnl  williholdim:  the  lawful  rights  of  those  who 
alone  are  fntitled  to  it.  If  llie  church  is  not  incoi paratcJ,  as  .Messrs.  Smith,  (irimkc. 
Capers,  Kennedy,  Martin  and  I'ierce  allirm,  the  properly  not  having  been  secured  to 
Trustees  in  trust  for  it,  necessarily  reverts  to  the  heirs  of  the  testator:  and  ;is  it  is  known 
that  there  are  none,  it  must  be  escheated,  according  the  statute  of  the  i^tate,  and  puss  into 
the  hands  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Oiplian  Mouse,  Cur  the  benefit  of  that  institution. 

We  deny  "acting  in  deliancc  of  the  constituted  auihority  of  the  church."  The  church 
is  either  the  preacher  or  the  discipline,  or  the  congregated  body  of  preachers,  exhorters, 
otficinl  and  lay  members  together.  'J'hc  preacher  irj//  ?Jo/ .^t?// that /if  is  the  church; 
the  discipline,  powerful  as  it  is  in  arming  the  preaclier  with  authority  to  do  as  he  pleases, 
neither  claims  to  be  the  church,  or  atlects  to  be  otVendcd  by  the  existence,  or  e.xerci.sc  of 
chartered  rights  in  the  church;  and  the  preachers,  exhorters,  ollicial  and  lay  members  uni- 
ted, have  never  reproved  us;  and  as  we  altrai/s  outvoted  tlum  two  to  one,  we  had 
good  reason  for  believing,  if  we  were  not  the  "constituted  autiioritics,"  that  our  oppo- 
nents had  less  claim  certainly,  to  arrogate  the  title  forihemselves. 

Having  disposed  of  the  first  and  second  points  contained  in  the  book,  as  far  as  the  mix- 
ed character  of  the  production  will  admit  understanding  it,  we  proceed  to  notice  those 
parts  on  which  the  gentlepien  allect  to  build  their  chief  hope  of  justification:  in  pursuing 
this  part  of  the  subject,  we  profess  to  consider  it  one  of  oitr  strong  points,  and  propose 
by  its  aid,  to  lilt  the  cover  from  the  gentlemen  s  hotbed,  to  expose  their  fancy  works,  and 
show  that  their  rhetorical  flowerets,  like  most  precocious  buddings,  only  flourish  in  fecu- 
lent soils  and  heated  atmospheres.  With  hardihood  equalled  only  by  a  strongly  marked 
attachment  for  fiction,  the  gentlemen  have  loosened  the  reins  of  discretion,  galloped  over 
the  field  of  piety,  heralded  their  disregard  for  the  preci-pts  of  religion,  emptied  their  full 
quivers  of  abusive  mi.ssiles;  re'cled  in  the  joy  of  their  fancied  destructions;  gazed  with 
delight  on  the  ruin  they  had  sought,  and  filled  to  excess  with  their  "ciiivalrous"  deeds, 
fell  swc'jtly  to  sleep  ''under  the  power  of  son^.''^ 

Leaving  them  for  a  while  to  the  entertainmenl  of  their  fairy  queen  of  slumber,  we  will 
proceed  to  the  work  of  reality,  and  |)repare  to  show  them  at  their  awaking,  that  though 
"cast  down  vvl  are  not  destroyed;'  though  wounded,  yet  are  we  not  slatJi.  The  bur- 
den of  the  gentlemen's  elibrts  [true  to  tlie  policy  of  all  Hierarchies]  has  been,  not  to  de- 
fend their  rights,  by  prool'of  right  or  argument  demonstrative  of  right,  but  by  resorting 
to  the  power  of  prejudice  and  superstition,  laying  hold  on  the  popularity  of  some  favour- 
ite, and  aiming  to  excite  the  sympathies  of  the  community,  seek  to  destrot/  any,  and  all 
who  dare  assert  their  rights,  by  opposing  an  unjust  doniUKition.  The  illustration  of  the 
subject  before  us,  will  carry  conviction,  we  think,  to  the  mind  of  every  unprejudiced 
person,  who  will  read  and  act  tor  himself  .After  exhausting  the  store-houses  of  abuse, 
and  attempting  to  render  us  odious  by  the   stigmatizing   epithets  of  "schismatics," 

"TRADUCERS,"  "FAI-SE-WITNEBSSKS,"'  "busy-bodies  IX  OTHER  men's  MAT- 
TERS," "PUERILISTS,"  "ADEPTS  IN  CUNNI.VG,"  "MEN  OF  CHICANERY,"  "UN- 
JUST," "BASE  FARICATORS,"  "CALUMNIATORS,"     "PERJURERS,"     "GLAniA- 

TORs,"  "CULPRITS,"  &c.  S:c.  After  a  sound  of  triumphal  joy,  issuing  from  the  very 
altars,  proclaiminga  miracle, :i  tniracle,  "the  chfiffii\{\cd  from  the  wheat,"  after  all 
their  indications  of  our  vileness;  witness  the  proofs  which  they  adduce  to  substantiate 
them.  Turn  to  the  page  which  contains  the  charge  and  specilicalions,  and  see  the  dole- 
ful array  of  crime  exhibited  there  against  us.  Read  ''disobedience  to  the  order  and 
discipline  of  the  church,''  sjiread  out  in  three  specific  articles,  the  utmost  stretch  of  the 
whole  being  to  .show  that  the  Vice  llieraich,  "a  man  of  as  great  judf^ment  as  any 
among  its,''  had  solved  one  of  the  deep  mysteries  'lontained  in  the  Sybil's  book,  [dis- 
cipline,] and  that  we  had  dared  to  question  his  infallibility  in  the  right  interpretation 
thereof.  See  in  that  charge,  and  \a  tha  letter  of  admonition  which  precedes  it,  the 
justification  for  gentlemen  who  teach  the  doctrines  of  truth  and  meekness,  that  if  men  arc 


.3.5 

reviled,  ihey  shall  not  revile  again;  tiiat  ihey  must  not  judgp,  lest  they  tliemselves  be 
judged,  &c.  [We  here  remark,  that  conduct  like  this,  will  do  more  to  favour  the  cause 
of  infidelity,  than  all  the  labours  of  Hume,  of  Paine,  and  of  Voltaire,  united,  could  ever 
have  etl'ccted  without  such  aid  as  they  have  given.]  Apprehensive,  however,  that  such 
glaring  inconsistency,  such  a  manifest  abuse  of  the  public  mind,  would  awaken  a  spirit  of 
in(]uiry,  that  would^i/frcc  the  veil  of  prejudice,  and  bring  the  indignation  of  an  offended 
people  upon  their  own  heads,  they  resort  to  the  favourite  device  used  on  all  such  occa- 
sions, an  appeal  to  prejudice  and  superstition.  A  prolepsis  is  raised,  and  perched  on  a 
promise,  keeps  prating  about  proof  which  is  just  within  reach;  but  mark  carefully  the  is- 
sue; the  promise  dissolves  by  the  skill  of  the  actors,  and  shows  in  the  distance,  the  shadow 
of  deeds  which  arc  }et  to  be  done.  'IVue  to  their  purpose,  they  adroitly  shift  the  scene, 
appear  suddenly  at 'another  point,  and  like  sf^^r.s  with  nobler  gifts  than  second  sight. 
they  dart  a  look  beyond  futurity ;  see  high  above  intention,  detect  the  rovings  of  a  bound- 
ed will,  catch  a  thought  yet  unconcei\ed,  and  by  the  mighty  magic  of  delusive  spell, 
grasp  the  srathfulghost,  and  mould  ;i  7noHstrr  frQ\n  nsJiadow's  shade.  The  stratagems 
of  the  gentlemen  are  numerous  enough,  but  the  machinery  is  worn,  the  wires  are  rusted, 
and  the  lignres  move  awkwardly  about;  the  illusion  can  no  longer  be  kept  up; hyperboles 
even  fail  the  desperate  cause,  for  poets  have  restrained  their  rage — large 

"Hyperboles,  so  daring  and  so  bold, 
Disdaining  bounds,  arf  yet  by  rules  confrolcd." 

We  would  fain  avoid  the  reproach  of  following  the  gentlemen  through  so  many  of  their 
absurd  hypotheses;  but  as  they  have  laboured  much  for  our  instruction  and  amusement, 
we  think  it  but  courtesy  to  notice  some  of  their  /?as/ifs.  In  support  of  one  of  their  as- 
sertions, that  we  wickedly  meditated  the  downfall  of  Methodism,  and  consequently  were 
"schismatics,"  and  ^'culprits,"  they  instance  the  demand  which  was  made  to  be  tried 
by  the  Society;  gravely  pronounce  it  a  ''trick"  to  avoid  "merited  punishment,"  eulogize 
the  fianiers  of  the  discipline,  laud  "/i?m  of  as  good  judgment  as  any  among  us,"  for 
ifire/y  deciding  that  the  disripliite  "did  not  allow  of  that  which,  if  allowed,  could 
not  be  done;"  raise  a  supposition  in  support,  and  in  praise  of  their  wonderful  acumen, 
and  argue  most  e.oquentiy  in  defence  of  a  defenceless  nothing.  Is  it  possible  that  he 
who  "has  as  good  a  judgn.ent  as  any  among  then),'"  should  havejeopaided  his  judgment 
by  subscribing  his  name  to  all  the  vagaries  of  the  youthful  A?najiuensis7  Hear  their 
argument — "Suppose  the  discipline  had  said  the  whole  society,  then  unless  the  whole 
society  [men  and  women,  boys  and  girls,  minors  we  suppose]  attended,  there  could 
be  no  trial,  and  the  offenders  would  go  unpunished."  It  is  only  necessary  to  remark 
here,  that  the  discipline  does  not  speak  any  such  nonsense;  and  the  introduction 
of  it  in  the  gentlemen's  book,  proves  more  against  their  cause  than  we  have  leisure  to 
comment  on. 

The  next  supposition  of  the  gentlemen  is  one  on  which  they  seem  to  fix  their  whole 
hope  of  success;  it  is  the  sweeping  charge  of  "concealed  designs;"  a  dark  conspiracy 
against  the  peace  and  good  government  of  the  church,  and  a  fixed  determination  to  stop 
short  of  nothing  but  taking  the  church  away  from  the  church.  Hear  the  gentlemen — 
"We  had  good  reason  to  believe  that  they  intended  more  than  was  shown,"  &c.  Some 
"godly  members"  had  whispered  treasonjn  their  ears.  This  was  sufficient;  the 
g\\0!it\y  form  of  771  urdcrcd  power,  staWied  reeking  in  their  view;  arguments  ceased  to 
convince;  documents  became  traitors' cloaks;  actions  were  daring  inroads  on  priestly 
power;  smiles  or  frowns  were  all  alike  but  daggers  half  concealed.  We  pass  no  judg- 
ment on  conduct  like  this;  we  do  not  hold  ourselves  responsible  for  the  perversity  of 
other  people's  minds,  neither  do  we  acknowledge  any  obligation  we  are  under  to  pilot 
every  wayward  understanding  into  the  road  to  reason.  We  confess  that  it  is  difficult 
sometimes  to  arrive  at  the  intentions  of  men,  but  we  have  been  taught  to  believe  that  ac- 
tions were  generally  indicative  of  motive,  and  that  when  an  action  was  of  a  binding  and 
controling  character,  it  w.is  so  strong  an  indication  of  purpose,  as  to  arrest  the  scepticism 
of  the  most  incredulous  observer.  We  now  proceed  to  the  important  part  of  our  duty, 
that  of  sliowmg  our  intention,  and  by  it  the  character  of  the  parties,  and  the  true  nature 
of  the  controversy;  and  we  propose  to  do  it  in  a  way  that  will  enable  the  reader  to  judge 
for  himself,  and  see  what  are  the  real  merits  of  the  case  iu  dispute.  It  will  be  borne  in 
mind  that  we  have  been  charged  with  "a  palpable  violation  of  the  discipline  of  the  church. ' ' 
The  preachers  have  declared  that  they  were  supported  in  what  they  did  "by  the  highest 
authority;"  that  we  claimed  to  exercise  rights,  which  they  were  bound  by  their  oaths  to 
oppose;  that  we  were  borne  with  until  "forbearance  was  no  longer  a  virtue;"  that  we 
were  alwavs  in  a  mi/iority  of  one  third  of  the  members;  tlrat  we  prevented  the   Bishop 

5 


34 

i*v  our  hasty  and  uitemperato  actions,  from  sendinp  on  ilio  division  wlncli  he  had  nbtain- 
cd  from  the  ctljtr  Bishops,  and  which  wcs  to  have  rr«lorrd  pearr  to  tlie  chnrrh;  tliat  we 
were  "Schitiniatics,"  "culprits,"  "gladiittors,'  "liyiiorritcs,"  and  every  tiling  thai 
t^hould  cnt  us  ofTfrom  mcmbersliip  and  communion  in  the  church;  that  "pvirrr,'''  "nu- 
prcmary,^^  was  our  object,  and  ;ill  t»ur  designs  were  sinister;  and  finally,  all  who  find 
fault  with  the  economy  of  .Methodism,  are  person-s  who  neither  walk  with  Hod,  or  live 
above  censure.  It  must  also  be  reinemlx.'red,  that  the  only  proof  which  the  gentlemen 
have  adduced  to  support  their  extraordinary  allegations,  has  been  their  own  astertions, 
bottomed  upon  the  supposed  existence  of  "sinister  designs,"  and  enforced  by  arguments, 
remarkable  only  for  the  sophistry  of  their  reasoning,  and  the  vulgarity  of  their  abuse.  In 
view  of  establishing  the  correctness  of  these  reniarkfl,  wc  submit  the  following  statement 
and  proofs:  viz. 

Evils  of  an  intolerant  cliaracler,  originating  in  the  presumption  of  n  certain  class  of 
our  population,  brought  us  in  contact  with  the  then  ruling  powers  in  the  church,  and 
an  opposition  to  what  was  ai  first  admitted  to  be  just  and  proper,  was  hastily  gotten 
up  against  us,  from  an  apprehension  that  success  with  us,  though  for  the  good  of  all, 
would  be  accompanied  by  a  loss  of  power  in  the  ;)r^aclicr.  The  effort  to  remedy  the 
evil,  [rendered  more  offensive  by  the  resistance  of  those  whose  ready  co-operution  we 
had  a  right  to  expect]  created  a  cabal  among  the  preachers,  who,  uuiting  with  such  of  the 
membership,  as  recognized  the  doctrine  of  infallibility  in  preachers  in  charge,  resolved  on 
maintaining  their  power,  though  it  should  be  at  the  hazard  of  all  that  was  doarand  valua- 
ble to  man.  lu  pursuance  of  this  decision,  a  proposition  was  made  ns  to  surrender  at 
discretion;  give  up  all  our  lights,  orsubniit  to  expulsion  from  the  church.  The  course 
pursued  by  the  preachers,  evidenced  to  our  minds,  that  the  love  of  power  with  them,  was 
greater  than  their  regard  for  the  souls  of  the  people.  Knowing  full  well,  however,  that 
the  prosecution  of  our  rights,  could  not  possibly  interfere  with  the  system  of  government 
in  the  church,  in  any  other  manner  than  lessening  the  power  of  the  preachers  in  the  man- 
agement of  the  temporal  concerns  of  the  society,  and  willing  to  believe  they  understood 
what  they  said,  and  said  what  they  tneant  [in  their  denial  of  a  desire  to  rule  in  tem- 
poral matters,]  we  perceived  no  cause  for  changing  the  rule  of  action,  laid  down  in  the 
constitution  and  by-laws,  adopted  at  the  meeting  of  the  corporation  in  November,  espe- 
cially af\er  the  violation  by  Dr.  Capers  of  one  of  the  important  articles  of  the  truce, 
which  had  been  agreed  to  by  a  few  individuals  under  the  extraordinary  circumstances,  as 
heretofore  stated  An  occasion,  however,  for  a  further  suspension  of  positive  action  on 
our  part,  occurred  through  the  intervention  of  Bishop  Emory,  during  his  visit  here  in 
February.  At  his  suggertion,  a  proposition  was  made  to  the  church  generally,  to  refer 
the  matter  in  controversy,  to  the  Bishops,  or  a  majority  of  them,  [six  in  number,]  for 
their  adjudication,  which  was  to  be  final,  and  binding  on  all  parties.  A  paper  specifying 
the  questions  to  be  submitted,  the  object  to  be  effected,  and  the  conditions  on  which  the 
decision  was  to  be  made,  and  forwarded  to  the  church  here  was  drawn  out  by  the 
Bishop  himself;  read  to  the  members,  and  taken  on  by  him  to  Baltimore  for  the  purpose 
of  obtainiug  the  opinions,  and  decision  first  proposed,  [a  copy  being  left  at  the  Parson- 
age.] This  paper  in  connection  with  some  others,  which  we  shall  introduce  in  their 
proper  places,  determine.'^  the  character  of  the  whole  controversy;  it  is  the  key  which  un- 
locks the  door  ofmysiicisni  that  lias  so  long-shut  out  the  light  of  truth,  and  which  caused 
doubt  to  linger  for  a  while  on  the  minds  of  a  few:  it  explains  motives,  rebukes  disingcu- 
uonsness,  developes  intention,  chases  fiction,  falsifies  assertions,  and  places  truth  in  the 
light  of  a  sunbeam 

The  first  witness  which  we  shall  introduce  to  rebut  the  charge  [so  insidiously  made]  of 
•'sinister  designs,"  is  a  paper  which  the  gentlemen  have  published  in  a  mutilated  form  on 
the  31flt  page  of  their  book.  It  purports  to  be  the  paper  which  contained  the  proposi- 
tions made  to  the  church  by  Bishop  Emory.  It  is  a  pari  of  that  paper,  we  acknowledge, 
and  we  thank  them  for  giving  so  much  of  it,  [the  ^^omission^^  of  the  rein;;inder  wliether 
*'igHorantly,"  or  "iiitentionally,"  it  is  not  our  business  to  say.]  The  j)ortion  which 
they  have  given,  contains  two  interrogatories,  submitted  for  the  decision  of  the  bench  of 
Methodist  Bishops,  or  a  majority  of  them.  The  first  is  as  follows;  "whether  an  incor- 
poration, either  of  the  Trustees,  or  of  the  male  members  of  the  church,  is  inconsistent 
with  the  discipline." 

The  second  is,  "whether  in  case  of  .such  an  incorporation,  the  principle  of  electing 
Trustees  by  the  votes  of  the  male  members  of  the  church,  at  such  times,  and  in  such 
manner,  as  might  be  agreed  on,  would  be  inconsistent  with  tlie  discipline. — Provided, 
it  be  the  vvLih  of  the  church  in  this  city  to  adopt  such  a   principle."     The  use  we  pro- 


35 

pose  making  of  tliis  paper  is  two  rold — first,  to  show  the  true  character  ol' our  "designs," 
and  secondly,  to  dcvclope  the  true  character  of  our  opponents. 

The  "paper,"  we  apprehend,  speaks  a  language  which  needs  no  interpreter,  it  brings 
the  whole  subject  to  one  point;  viz:  VViiethcr  the  acts  proposed  to  be  performed  by  us 
under  the  charter,  were  inconsistent  with  the  discipline,  provided  it  was  the  wish  of  the 
church  in  this  city  to  adopt  such  a  course.  It  will  be  perceived,  that  the  intent  of  the 
*'power,^'  claimed  by  us,  was  specifically  set  forth,  and  clearly  defined  to  be,  the  right 
of  electing  the  Trustees  ofthe  church,  [men  who  receive  and  disburse  the  revenues  of  the 
church  at  their  pleasure,]  by  the  vote  of  the  church,  and  making  them  responsible  lo 
the  church,  provided,  it  be  the  wish  ofthe  church  that  it  should  be  so.  This  paper  is 
incontrovertible  evidence  of  the  intent  of  power  claimed  by  us;  and  the  privileges  which  it 
would  have  conferred  upon  the  party,  [provided  we  were  the  majority,]  would  have  fal- 
len as  far  short  of '"supremacy,"  as  the  book  ofthe  gentlemen  does  of  being  an  exem- 
plification ofthe  spirit  of  that  master  whom  they  boastfully  profess  to  love  and  serve. 

The  first  enquiry  we  consider  superfluous;  the  fact  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church- 
es being  incorporated  in  various  places  would  suflice  of  itself,  but  as  wc  have  the  autho- 
rity ofthe  General  Conference,  and  the  frank  avowal  of  Bishop  Emory,  that  incorpora- 
tions are  not  invasions  ofthe  discipline,  it  is  as  well  to  take  them  into  the  account  of 
evidence  on  this  point.  If  more  were  necessary,  we  could  quote  from  Dr.  Capers,  [than 
whom  there  is  no  higher  authority  with  these  gentlemen]  and  show  that  with  all  his  love 
for  exclusive  rule  by  the  ministry,  he  actually  convened  the  corporation  once,  for  the 
purpose  of  instructing,  and  empowering  the  Trustees,  to  act  in  a  certain  matter  then  at 
issue,  [but  lie  "uias  not  informed  on  a  les^al  question^'  then"]  and  again  in  Novem- 
ber 1833,  he  was  "decided  not  to  call  a  corporation  meeting  on  purely  legal 
grounds.''^  The  second  interrogatory  is  so  comprehensive,  that  it  embraces  the  whole 
matter  in  dispute,  and  taken  in  comicction  with  the  parts  ofthe  paper  which  the  gen- 
tlemen accidentally  remembered  to  forget,  puts  to  shame  the  authors  ofthe  calumny 
which  has  been  so  "recklessly"  dealt  out  against  us.  We  invite  particular  attention  to 
the  phraseology  of  this  portion  of  that  "paper,"  for  it  propounds  questions,  which  involve 
all  the  controverted  points  that  was  raised  between  the  parties  in  the  church,  and  places 
us,  we  think,  in  a  position  of  perfect  security  against  the  malevolent  attacks  ofthe  in- 
triguing and  disingenuous  members  ofthe  conclave.  Now  what  are  the  questions  pro- 
pounded? Why  precisely  such,  and  such  only,  as  honestly  belongs  to  the  matter  in  dis- 
pute. We  claimed  the  right,  in  behalf  of  the  members,  of  electing  to  olfice  those  per- 
sons who  managed  the  temporal  concerns  of  the  church,  and  of  making  them  responsible 
elsewhere  than  to  themselves.  We  thought  that  the  members  ofthe  church  had  a  deep- 
er interest  in  the  temporal  aftairs  ofthe  society,  than  any  other  class  of  individuals  could 
possibly  have,  and  in  view  of  this  wc  adopted  rules,  and  regulations,  which  would  break 
up  the  corrupting  practice  of  a  board  perpetuating  itself,  by  limiting  the  term  of  otfice  to 
one  year,  and  giving  the  right  of  election  to  the  members  of  the  church.  The  opposition 
to  this  natural  right,  by  Prcacheis  and  Trustees,  led  to  the  proposed  arbitration  of  the 
Bisliops;  and  as  we  had  been  charged  by  those  in  power  with  "sinister  designs,"  with  an 
attempt  to  rob  the  preacher  in  charge  of  a  power  which  the  discipline  guaranteed  to  him — • 
that  of  nominating  to  the  board  candidates  to  fill  vacancies  in  the  board,  of  which  he  was 
chairman,  who  were  to  be  elected  by  the  members  of  the  board — We  yielded  to  the 
suggestion  of  Bishop  Emory,  that  as  the  discipline  was  made  the  cause  of  contention,  and 
the  Bishops  were  the  authorised  expounders  of  it,  to  submit  the  questions  of  right  to  their 
adjudication.  The  paper  was  drawn  up  by  the  Bishop  himself,  and  a  careful  perusal 
of  it  will  satisfy  every  mind,  that  he  was  no  partisan  of  a  "disaffected  minority,"  and 
that  unless  our  claims  were  based  on  principles  of  strictest  justice;  unless  the  discipline 
openly  admitted  our  rights,  and  unless  we  were  in  an  unquestioned  majority  of  the 
church,  neither  preacher,  discipline,  trustees,  or  any  adherent  of  priestly  power,  hac^ 
cause  to  tremble  at  the  reference  thus  made.  The  question  it  will  be  remembered  was, 
whether  in  case  of  an  incorporation  ofthe  male  members  of  the  church,  the  principle  of 
electing  Trustees  by  the  votes  of  the  male  members,  at  such  time,  and  in  such  manner,  as 
might  be  agreed  on,  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  discipline. — Provided,  it  bo  the 
tfi.sft  of  the  c/iurfA,  in  this  city  to  adopt  such  a  principle:  Mark  the  difficulties  then, 
which  obstructed  our  march  on  the  road  to  "supremacy."  First,  the  ruling  powers,  [the 
Bishops,]  mu.st  have  bended  to  our  will,  and  unmindful  of  their  oath  to  niaintain  the  dis- 
cipline, have  yielded  their  judgment,  their  mitres,  and  their  consciences,  to  pur  "factious" 
desires.  Secondly,  it  must  have  been  agreed  on  by  the  church,  consisting  of  preach-. 
as,  cxhorttrs,  official  and  laymen,  that  they  desired  such  a  course,   and  would  have. 


tlie  change  efl'ected;  and  thirdly ,  it   required  tlie   as>i>laiico  of  superhuman    agency,  to 
transform  onr  "tni7iorily  of  less  than  one-third ,^^  into  a  number  equal  to  tliat  which  is 
universally  admitted  as  necessary  to  determine  tl)C  wishes  orsentimcnls  ofany,  and  every 
public  societ}'.     The  only    possible  ground  on  which  the  gentlemen,  in    our  view,  could 
hope  to  escape  the  condemnation  due  to  such  "reckless"  conduct,  as  that  of  charging  us 
with  the  nj<c«/i(J7i  of  sw&ucr<in^  the  discipline,  and  econoi.iy  ofthochurth,    with   this 
paper  in  their  possession,  is  one  which  ought  to  mantle  tit  i.  cheeks  with  liues  of  deep- 
est dye;  it  is  a  concealment  of  the  truth,  a  keeping  back  part  of  the  price  of  honesty ;  it  is 
the  tcithholding  that  which  was  unknown  to  many,  and  which  they  iioped  was  forgotten 
by  the  few;  it  is  in  fact  the  other  parts  of  that  very  paper,  an  allusion    to    which,   drove 
them  to  the  specious  sophisms  tiiat  spread  themselves  through  the  31,  32  and  33  pages  of 
their  "Arabian  Tales."     It  is  the  key  to  their  undoing,  the  "ghost  of  Banco,"  whichob- 
trudes  its  unwelcome  presence  on  their  guilty  feastings.     It  is  that  which  wo  alluded  to 
a  few  pages  back,  as  developing    intention,  by  the  controlling  character  of  the  act;  it  is 
that  which  says,  "the  brethren  claiming  under  the  corporation,  aura,  that  in  case   the 
Bisheps  shall  decide,  that  what  they  propose  is  inconsistent  with  the  discipline,  they  will 
abandon  their  whole  ground,"  [the  gentlemen  have  the  paper,  if  we  err,  vveinvile  cor- 
rection.]    This  is  not  all.     The  paper  proposed  an  application  to  the  Legislature  of  this 
State,  for  a  new  charter,  or  a  remodeling  of  the  old  one,  so  as  to  remove  the  objections 
which  were  urged  against  it  by  the  Doctor,  and  those  who  thought  with  him.     Aye,  still 
more;  that  same  paper  contained  an  outline  of  an  act  for   re-incorporating  the    church  in 
this  city,  in  which  was  a  denial  of  right,  or  a  r<>nunciation  on  the  part  of  the  corporators 
of  all  right  to  intermeddle  with  any  matters  of  a   spiritual    character,  and   giving   the 
preachers,  and  the  Quarterly  Conference,  the  sole  right  of  appointing  the  Stewards,  and 
the  entire  management  of  all  monies  collected  in  the  churches,  and  classes,    with  all   be- 
quests for  the  benefit  of  the  preachers,  or  stewards  funds,  the  appointment  of  class  lead- 
ers, exhorters,  &c.  &c.     Will  the  community  believe  that  men  who  prate  so  mucli  about 
"honesty,"  and  "/JoZicy  i?i  tr«r,"  who  declaim   so  violently   against  holding   back 
things  that  "have  an  important  bearing  on  the  case,''''  should  be  guilty  of  so  gross  an 
abuse  of  the  public  confidence,  as  to  present  a  paper  for  consideration,  and  conceal  from 
view  those  parts  which  had,  not  only  an  "important  bearing  on  the   case,"  but  without 
which,  there  could  be  no  understanding  of  the  objects  or  aims  proposed  by  it;  [for  shame 
gentlemen:]     But  perhaps   "tiikre  were  two  paragraphk,"  and  the  first   was 
considered  sufficient  for  their  purposes,  or  perhaps  there  were  "two  papers,"     and 
the  gentlemen  quoted  from  the  one  which  was  "lost,"  or  perhaps  the  young   novelist 
who  performed  the  onerous  duty  of  amanuensis  to  his  own  composings,  grew  tired    of 
prosing  over  facts,  and  having  refreshed  himself  with  a  draft  of  his  favorite  fiction,  forgot 
to  take  up  the  right  thread  when  he  resumed  the  "narrative."  Comment  here  would  be 
an  insult  to  the  understanding  of  the  reader. 

We  pass  on  to  the  examination  of  the  second  witness,  and  call  on  Bishop  .^ndreiv. 
The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  that  Bishops  Andrew  and  Emory,  were  in  Charleston  to- 
gether, in  February  last,  that  they  had  interviews  with  Dr.  Capers  at  the  Ceorgia  Con- 
ference, just  previous  to  their  coming  to  Charleston;  were  informed  on  all  jioints  touching 
our  "reDo/u/io/iary  </esig»is,"  as  presented  to  them  by  the  doctor;  also  that  they  had 
seen  the  doctor's  first  pamphlet;  and  consequently  all  our  proceedings  as  a  corporation, 
which  were  fully  spread  out  on  the  pages  of  that  pamphlet,  were  familiar  to  tlieni:  added 
to  this,  they  had  all  the  advantages  which  could  accrue  from  being  on  the  spot  when  the 
"REBELLION  "was  raging.  What  is  the  testimony  of  Bishop  Andrew.' — first,  a  decla- 
ration that  the  old  Trustees  were  a  wrong  headed  set  of  men;  secondly,  that  there  had 
been  too  much  heed  given  at  the  Parsonage,  to  the  tales  of  ill  omened  gossips,  who  had 
nothing  to  do  but  to  deal  out  slander  as  a  pastime;  thirdly,  that  the  obstinacy  of  the  old 
Trustees  would,  [he  feared]  compel  a  resort  to  the  courts  of  law  for  the  final  settlement 
of  disputes  among  us;  fouithly,  that  as  a  quiet  and  peaceful  measure,  lie  would  recom- 
mend a  separation,  or  adivision  of  the  disputants,  and  as  we  were  the  most  tractable,  ho 
advised  as  a  last  resort,  that  we  should  form  a  distinct  congregation,  be  placed  under  a 
separate  charge,  have  an  act  of  "incorporation  to  suit  ourselves,  and  be  supplied  witli 
a  minister  who  would  be  furnished  us  by  the  Bishop  presiding  over  this  diocese.  In  a 
letter  from  Bishop  Andrew  to  us,  of  the  6th  August,  1834,  he  says — "would  it  not  have 
"been  the  better  course  in  the  commencement  of  this  unhappy  affair,  instead  of  arraying 
"parties  under  hostile  banners,  and  calling  into  requisition  the  worst  passions  of  human  na- 
"ture,  to  have  procured  an  authoritative  legal  decision  of  the  points  of /att),  embraced 
"Tn  the  controversy."     Again. — "I  foresuw  from  the  commencement,  that  &  law  suit 


37 

'•must  settle  the  inaltsr,  and  1  thought  it  had  better  be  done  pcaceabli,  thiui  olhermtse."  Agaia — 
"Another  plan  suggested  at  my  last  conf.'rencp  with  Bishop  Emory,  V.-as  to  advise  tlie  brethren 
"claiming  corporate  rights,  to  forui  a  separate  congregatioii,  procure  u  charier  such  as  thet/  vnght 
"airprove,  with  the  assuranci'  tliai  in  such  an«\vnt.  the  Bishops  would  make  it  a  separate  charge 
"and  send  ihfui  a  preacher  accordingly."  (iuERY?  Did  Bishop  Andrew  consider  a  resort  to 
LAW,  as  snlhcient  cau.-H"  for  cxpubion,  (wiih  two-thirds  of  a  days  notice  for  trial)  or  did  h^  view 
our  proposed  action  under  the  act  of  incorporation  as  a  "palfxible  vwhiion  of  the  disrijJine"  of 
the  church?  Or  did  he  believe  that  wc  were  schismatics,  culprits,  men  of  chicanery, 
ADEPTS  IN  cUNNiNc;.  &.C.  «S:c.  because  we  endeavoureil  to  accomplish  what  he  h&d  foresceti 
from  the  commiiicoiuiit,  (a  scttlemoni  of  llie  dispute  by  a  resort  to  law  ns  inevitable;)  or  did  he 
consider  chartertd  riglits  a.s  '^ic^nUsiiig  acombinatiou  of  disorc;anizers,  and  as  inilraging  the 
discipline  with  impunity?"  (sec  pnge31  of  Expositi<m  continued.)  Verily  tlieduj-  of  wonders 
can  never  dea-se  whilst  young  imported  "srusTiTTTEs"  (se"  page  9  of  Dr.  Capern'  pamphlet)  are 
perniiltcd  to  chatt;  r  away  the  sober  reflections  of  their  grave  seniors,  (the  Bishops.) 

We  pass  on  the  third  witness,  and  introduce  Bishop  Kmory  to  the  gentlrmen.  Th"  reader  will 
please  bear  in  mind,  thai  Bishop  Emory  w;us,  and  s'ill  is,  the  head  of  ih"  Church  in  t'harleslon, 
(youth-Carolina  being  a  part  of  his  dioce.se)  that  he  was  intimately  acquainted  with  tlie  facts  of 
the  case  hffoi'e  us,  having  conversed  freely  and  rej»ealedly  with  thepartie.s  on  both  sides  of  ths 
question,  had  seen  the  constitution  and  by-laws,  wliich  had  been  adopted  i>y  us,  the  corporation 
party,  in  Nov.  1833,  was  bound  by  the  obligation  of  an  oath  of  great  solemnity,  to  support  and 
defend  the  discipline  and  economy  of  the  Metluxlist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  I'nittHl  States,  has 
been  a  lawyer  of  eminence,  and  perhaps  the  best  expounder  of  the  Methodist  code  known  in  the 
Church.  What  is  the  testimony  of  this  witness?  Why,  that  "incorporations  of  ihe  Methodist 
"churches  are  not  inconsistent  with  Methodist  discipline,"  we  have  churches  in  various  nart.s  of 
the  country  "which  are  incorporated.  I  pt?rceive  agreat  <lifri<ulty  in  llieChurcii  here,  but  it  is 
"altogether  with  ijourselvcs,  if  either  party  ^^ould  yield  to  the  other,  the diffictdly  wotdd  cease.  I 
"have  power  to  decide  the  controversy  at  once,  but  as  the  old  Trustees  ajipear  wedded  to  their 
"opinions,  I  would  prefer  submitting  the  questions  to  th,^  Bishops  generally,  or  to  a  majority  of 
"them.  I  will  draw  up  what  J  consider  will  meet  the  views  of  both  parties,  and  submit  it  to  the 
"congregation  on  next  Sabbath  after  service,  will  leave  a  copy  at  the  Parsonage,  and  take  the 
"paper  with  me  to  Baltimore,  for  tli?  purpose  of  obtaining  the  opinions  and  decision  of  th^'  Bish- 
"ops  upon  it;  1  will  be  able  at  fartiiest  to  send  you  the  dt^cision  in  two  months:  1  understand  you 
"distinctly,  ns  binding:  yourselves  to  submit  to  the  adjudication  of  the  Bishops,  be  their  judg- 
"ment  for  or  against  you;  1  understand  you  distinctly  as />led<:iiirr  yourselves  in  the  event  of  a 
"decisio!!  adverse  to  your  views,  to  abandon  all  your  claims  under  the  charter;  the  goverment  of 
"ihechurch  to  continue  as  heretofore.  In  theeveni  of  the  old  Trustees,  and  others  continuing  re- 
"fractory,  if  the  Episcopal  judgment  b^-  in  opposition  to  their  views,  I  will  instruct  the  Preacher 
"in  charge  to  enforce  the  discipline  agaiiist  them.  If  (as  you  suggest,)  any  occurrence  should 
"prevent  me  from  sending  on  the  deeiiion,  I  will  notify  tlu'  Preacher  and  yourselves;  and  you 
"will  then  be  whL\-e  I  found  y^nv.  primps  a  r<.>ori  to  th{>  law  will  then  be  tiie  only  way  to  ter- 
"minate  the  controversy.  I  b.lie\e,  sincerely,  you  de-ire  nothing  but  what  you  conscientiously 
"think  the  discipline  warrants  you  in  claiming."  In  a  letter  f:om  Bishop  Emory  tons,  datt^d 
Baltimore,  .luly  31, 1831,  he  says — "\our  letter  of  the  I'J'h  iiisl.  brings  me  painful  intelligence, 
"painfully  expressed  under  feelings  of  ONeiieinrni,  doubtlt'ss,  which  as  well  as  the  occasion  of  it, 
"I  cannot  but  deeply  regret.  The  cause  of  my  ddai/iug  to  communicate  a  decision  of  the  Bish- 
"ops  in  the  qui'stion  referred  to  them,  1  ha\  e  before  explained  in  a  letter  to  brother  Kennedy, 
■'which  I  perceive  you  have  seen  as  I  desired.  The  o/yfr7  of  thai  refirciicc  being  a  pacific  ad- 
"Justmenl,  J  still  doubt  the  propriety  oi'  communicating  any  decision  till  bothjMrtics  pledge  them- 
■  "selves  to  abide  by  it,  which  has  liot  yv^t  Iwu  done."  Speaking  on  the  subject  of  the  interviews 
with  us  when  I\Ir.  Kennedy  and  the  Presiding  "Klder  were  present,  he  remarks, — "Brother  Ken- 
"nedy  in  particular  accompanied  me,  not  as  chairman  of  the  old  board  of  Trustees,  but  as  the 
"minister  in  charge  of  the  staiio.i."  Again  1^'  ndds, — "I  confess  I  begin  to  fear,  that  wiih  your 
"existing  views  and  feelings  on  both  sides,  you  will  hardly  be  brought  U>  harmonise,  agreeably  to 
"our  earnest  desire,  under  one  pastoral  charge;  if  this  be  .so,  will  it  not  be  better,  less  scandalous 
"in  the  public  eye,  and  more  in  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  to  agree,  that  those  who  desire  it,  shall 
"worship  together  under  a  distinct  charge,  in  the  common  bond  of  the  same  geiicnd  communion, 
"as  a  temporary  measure  at  least,  till  your  next  Annual  Conforence?  Perhaps  .some  arrangement 
"of  this  sort  might  be  made,  if  desired,  by  any  considerable  portion  of  the  Society:"  and  con- 
cludes by  saying  "I  e,ntreat  you  never  to  Ibrget,  that  whatever  else  you  may  gain,  if  you  lose 
the  true  christian  spirit  you  lose  all." 

A  brief  application  of  the  foregoing,  may  not  be  imiraportant,  though  the  plainness  of  the  case 
"commends  itself  to  every  nian'a  undcistanding." 

Are  we  then  the  vile  characters  representetl  in  the  book  of  these  pious  gentlemen?  Are  wo 
"disorganisers,"  "self-willed,"  "factious,"  "adepts in  cunning,"  "m.^n  of  chicanery,"  "base  fabri- 
cators," "revolutionists,"  "culprits,"  "gladiators,"  "schismatics,"  &c.  We  trow  not!  or,  if  we 
arc,  we  go  in  company  with  two  of  tlie  gentlemen's  Bishops.  Have  we  done  any  thing  that  is 
palpably  obnoxious  to  the  Discipline?  ^Ve  apprehend  not;  for  the  Bishojis,  under  the  solemnity 
of  a  peculiarly  binding  oath,  were  bound  to  tell  us,  if  we  had  .so  done,  and  they  have  notso  told 
us.  Was  our  conduct  of  that  atrocious  charact"r  that  made  ^forbearance  no  longer  a  virtue?" 
We  appeal  to  the  invitation  of  two  Bishops,  who  were  conversant  with  the  whole  proceedings  to 
remain  in  the  connexion,  "in  the  common  bond  of  the  same  general  communion,"  with  the  privi- 
lege of  procuring  an  "act  of  incorporation  to  suit  otrrsehrs."     Wo  appeal  to  the  letter .  of  adrao- 


.is 

xiiiuii,  aiid  tlie  oflicial  charges  of  the  geiillemon  tlipniselvrs;  did  we  ineditale  ilit-  diiitruciion  of 
the  charch,  bj-  "a.«siiniing  ihc  right  of  srtiinp  ns'nlv  th.  di-ii|iliiji',"  ami  "ucliiiR  nrronling  lo  our 
own  lawUsx  notioas  of  ri^hl  and  wrong'"  (M  men- minority  of  lews  than  one  iliirdf")  \W  tifii«-ld 
oursefves,  by  thcpanojily  ofiriith;  we  refer  lo  the  j>ap«'r  which  irrevocably  hotiiul  lis  lo. ^uhmil  lo 
the  adjudication  of  the  hwom  defenders  of  the  Disoiphne.  Did  we  violate  scripture  rules,  and 
diKciphnen«trictions,  by  going  to  "law  with  the  brethren'"'  We  boldly  deny  I  lie  ( liarge.  \Vc 
went  to  law  with  a  stranger,  who  occupied  pr<  mises  that  were  either  subject  ^al<ine)  to  our  con- 
trol, as  a  corporation,  or  that  belongcii  of  right  to  the  (Jrphnii  Instiiiition  of  this  city.  Were  we 
tryuig  to  overturn  the  rightful  government  of  the  church,  by  instituting  a  suit  whicli  \\<Mild  ena- 
ble If  to  get  into  the  Appeal  Court,  and  priKure  a  final  decision  on  a  coniroverted  point,  \n  hicli 
hml  distracted  the  church  for  a  year:  we  ask,  what  did  l»r.  Caiiei-s  mean,  by  his  ostensive  th-sirc 
to  get  the  matter  into  the  Appeal  Court?  What  did  the  Bishops  desi^'n,  when  fhty  siiggestrd  an 
appeal  to  the  Court/  What  mode  of  procoe<lingH  could  Imvo  been  adonfd  lo  effect  this  end,  oili- 
er than  the  one  which  w,xs  adopted, or  that  which  was  often  pro|x»sed,  and  which  thfy  as  often 
rejected,  "an  amicable  uuit' "  Are  we  jieculiarly  cli.irgpable  with  "dunm:  rfrantcrif,"  in  riiiing 
fo  speak  in  the  prepence  otrrict.-t,  when  ih«y  hail  uii>irr  id<-<l  iheirsannity,  by  x-iohiluig  a  pl.-dgp 
given  not  two  hours  previous,  not  todo,  wlirii  lh(i/  so  "ncklr-ssly"  did  do?  Have  wo  fahtly 
tKxu'tdoi'  havinf^hieh  ovlhontif,  lor  what  we  did,  when  we  show  the  opinions  of  two  flishops, 
(th?  Bishops  bemg  the  highestauthority  in  the  thurch.')  Have  we  conip<]ie<i  tlie  !,'(iill<  men  lo 
do  what  they  haredone,  by  forcing  upoii  thiin,  acts,  which  tlity  "were  buund  by  th-ir  oaths  lo 
oppose,"  the  Bishops,  (whose oaths  are  more  binding,  not  considering,  that  their  con.sciencta  suf- 
fered, by  permitting  us  to  proceed?  Did  we  "prevent  the  Bishop  from  sending  on  the  d'fcisioii," 
which  he  had  undertaken  to  prcK  lire,  when  tlie  resolutions  which  wo  passini  on  the  subjecf, 
were  not  adopted  until  the  Bishop  had  twice  written,  that  he  was  prevented  from  sending  it  by 
the  act  of  the  old  Tnwte<'s.'  Did  we  aim  at  "supremacy  in  the  chiirdi,"  when  we  surr.ndercd 
every  right  into  the  hands  of  the  Preachers,  except  ihat  of  electing  the  Trustees?  Could  wo 
have  been  iu  the  minority,  which  they  speak  of,  when  we  outvoted  them,  onevory  occasion,  that 
we  were  permitted  to  meet  together  as  a  society  or  church .'  Can  any  man  of  common  sense,  or 
common  honesty,  charge  us  "w  ith  sinister  designs,"  when  we  had  put  it  in  the  power  of  the  Bish- 
ops, to  prostrate  us  with  a  word;  when  we  had  solemnly  agreed  to  u  proiwsition,  whicii  special- 
ly (Stated  all  that  wa»  claimed,  and  that  projwsition  m;uie  by  a  Methodist  Bishop,  ami  referred  to 
thebenchof  Methodist  BisKoj>s,iot  their  opinion,  astoita  harmony  with  tiie  disciphiie  and  econ- 
omy of  the  church,  and  a  pUdee  given  to  ulxindvn  our  whole  ground,  if  it  was  pronounced  "jn- 
consisieiit  with  the  disciphne?'^  \Vill  any  but  a  dupe  to  the  mazy  artifices  of  the  holy  conclave, 
believe  that  the  ruffian  "Diotrephes,"  with  his  banditti  of  'driUcd  adherenlg,"  his  lawless  hosls 
of  conspiratorn,  ("aiming  at  supremacy,")  his  trained  band  of  "liy|)Ocrites,"  "traducers,"  "false 
witnesses,"  "busy  bodies  in  oilier  men's  niaiters,'  "puerilisls,"  "base  fabricators,"  'Mdepbi  in 
cunning,"  "men  of  chicanery,"  "unjul,"  "calumniators,"  "perjurors,"  schismatics,"  "culprits," 
and  "gladiators,"  will  it  be  believetl  we  say,  that  these  daring  rebels,  thirsting  for  power  with 
vehement  desire,  regardless  of  the  means  by  which  they  should  obl;iin  ii,  had  voluntarily  dejws- 
iied  all  their  engines  of  war,  their  shields  and  bucklers,  and  armour  too,  in  the  arsenal  of  the  fun 
whom  they  intended  to  destroy?  We  apprehend  not;  the  gentleni'Mi  must  have  Ikjcii  frighteiu d 
at  the  ghosts  of  theirown  murdered  consciences.  What  else  could  havealarmed  them.'  Why 
did  they  and  their  adherents  oppose  the  bending  on  of  the  Bishop's  decision?  We  could  hayo 
done  nothing  without  their  sanction,  and  not  liien,  unless  we  were  greatly  in  the  majority;  refer 
to  the  "paper,"  "j/rovidcd  it  be  the  wish  of  the  church  in  this  city  to  adopt  such  aprinriple."  \S  by 
tlien  be  afraid.'  "fonscienne  does  make  men  cowards  sometimes."  Aye,  and  robs  them  ol  sph-n- 
did  victories  too.  Suppose  the  gentlemen  liad  honestly  believed  that  w  hat  we  had  done,  and  pro- 
posed doing,  under  the  act  of  incorporation,  were  actiial  violations  of  thediscipliiie,  must  they  not 
have  anticipated  a  decision  against  us,  w  Inch  w  oiild  have  put  our  w  hole  troop  completely  "hors  de 
combat;"  which  would  have  given  the  hand  of  x\w  fttilhjtti,  a  peaceful  opporliuuty  of  charging 
us,  horse,  foot  and  dragoons,  and  acfjuiring  tor  their  goose  quill  chiefiain,  a  victory  eijual  to  his 
highest,  loudest, dearest  lio|)es?  Luckless  youth!  where,  oh!  where  was  the  geni  that  presided 
o%er  thy  lor  tunes,  w  hen  thoii  wast  chosen  a  ".siibsiiiuU',"  lo  fill  a  mighty  c/uisih  in  the  C'harlcjston 
station!  Where  was  ihat  genius  which  develo(M?d  himself  so  toweringly  in  the  novel  invention 
of  an  "alar.m  klac;?"     Gone,  gone,  gone.     Alas,  ]K)or  George.' 

The  gentl-nun  boast  of  their  imijarlial  administration  of  discipline,  and  in  proof  of  if,  say, 
that  they  did  not  rite  ns  to  trial  with  a  view  of  getting  rid  of  the  suit  Ix-fore  llic  magistrate,— 
will  they  be  pleased  to  tell  us  why  th"y  were  in  siuh  haste  aljoiit  the  matter,  "w  ill  the  communi- 
ty receive  the  ridiculous  statement,"  which  they  have  made  in  absence  of  all  testimony  to  sup- 
port it.'  What  is  their  proof,  why,  theasscrtiou  that  "they  had  meditated  it  some  time  before.  " 
Suppose  ihcy  had,  the  less  excuse  certainly,  for  notifying  us  at  midday  on  .Monday,  to  apjH'ar  be-' 
lore  the  Sanhedrim  on  Tuesday  at  9  A.  M.  and  when  interrupted  by  a  citation  to  ap|Kar  beforo 
the  court,  to  alter  the  citations  to  4  P.  M.  same  day,  and  serve  them  at  12.  Why  ifour  conspiracy 
had  equalled  that  which  was  meditated  af,'aist  the  Senate  of  Venice,  they  could  not  ha\e  pro- 
ceeded with  great  urgency  But,  "//(ty  had  meditated  it,"  aye,  and  jike  Nebiuhadnczzcr's  ir- 
reversible decree,  it  had  gone  tbrth  throughout  the  vast  empire  of  their  three-fold  thoughts.  Jus- 
tice was  to  be  silenced,  equity  was  to  be  hushed,  religion  with  her  preceptive  nil",  "7>o  iniio  oth- 
ers as  you  would  IheyahoxiU  do  unto  you,"  was  laid  aside  luitil  a  more  convenient  .•reason  wnuld 
authorise  them  to  resume  it:  Mordecai  was  in  the  gate,  and  daman  Wiis  unhappy.  But  they 
"»ele<ted  the  most  impartial  inoffensive  men  thai  they  could  find.  '  They  were  all  "solwr," 
grave,  'considerate.  tz7»»  nenccc/ men  "     Well,  perlmji-  so.  We  regret.  h'-'>\  ever,  that  ire  do  know- 


;i9 

that  llieydiil  know,  tli.it  three  (at  least)  of  lliefonr  \vhi»  ilid  iioi  attend,  had  expressly  refused  to 
do  so,  aiid  those  who  did  altoiid  were  known  (two  exronted)  tohe  among  the  most  violent  of  their 
party,  one  having  said  onlu'inp  addressed,  by  the  tisnal  appellation  of  "brother,"  that  he  "would 
as  soon  rail  l\w  Dccil  his  brother,  as  a  corporation  man,"  another,  that  "he  would  spiU  the  last 
drop  of  his  heart' s  blvi'd"  before  he  would  sulli'r  Holloway  to  be  removed  from  the  seat  which  he 
was  oceupying  in  thr"  ehurch,  tliough  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  many  of  the  members  and  the 
resolutions  dI'iIk?  Quartf  rly  I  "onlerenee;  a  third  had  a  son  in  the  ministry,  v\  ho  was  known  to  be 
violently  opposed  to  us,  and  to  all  who  denied  infallibility  in  the  Preaehi>rs;  a  fourth  was  incapa- 
ble, from  his  own  confessions,  (neither  understanding  how  to  read  or  write,)  of  |»ereeiving  the 
right  or  wrong  of  the  matter;  and  a  fifth,  from  a  cause  of /oo  disi^itnlifi/iji"  a  chnTacVe-r  tt)  re- 
<|uirean  argiimf^nt;  thesixth  yielded  his  own  judgmint  to  the  solicitation  of  the  Preachers,  ami 
the  seventh  stonily  di'lended  us  to  the  Inst.  I'hese  are  the  men,  w  ho,  nodding  assent  to  the  dic- 
tates of  him  "who  has  as  good  ajudgnicnt  as  any  among  them,"  determined,  what  two  Bishops 
had  declined  the  responsibility  of  doing,  on  what  had  been  referred  to  a  bench  of  Bishops  Ibr 
their  adjudication. 

But  the  gentlemen  have  said,  that  they  had  not  expressed  any  opinions  on  the  subject.  Wc 
could  say  much  on  this  point,  but  it  would  be  daring  "effrontery,"  to  correct  an  error  in  these 
gentlemen;  it  would  absolutely  be  littl.' short  of  .Naying  that  they  were  Aristocrats,  and  that 
would  be  so  inconsistent  with  the '•jieculiar  delicacy  of  fwling,"  which  they  say  we  possess;  but 
they  admit  that  one  had  prejudged  the  ca.se,  and  he  was  only  taken  to  fill  the  vacancy.  Indeed, 
take  a  sworn  enemy  tiir  a  Juror?  Were  they  so  straitened  for  men,  a.s  to  be  oi)liged  to  take  one 
whose  prejudices  were  notoriously  known,  who  resided  at  the  opposite  extreme  of  the  town,  and 
whose  avocations  called  him  daily  from  the  city.  This  has  an  ugly  squinting  at  something. — 
What  had  become  of  the  large  majority  of  "godiy  men?"  If  this  is  a  sample  of  the  "t/'A«af," 
we  are  not  surprised  that  the  "w  innowing  ftui"  w  as  applied  to  the  "floor." 

To  follow  the  gentlemen  in  their  tortuous  course  throughout,  would  be  as  fatiguing  as  it  is  un- 
necessary. They  are  anxiously  flying  tVom  facts;  we  seek  repose  within  the  ramparts  of  truth. 
We  believe  that  we  have  maintained  the  position  w hich  we  assumed  in  our  fiist  pamphlet;  and 
if  it  should  be  remarked  that  we  have  omitted  noticing  any  particular  {xiints  in  ihe  book  which 
may  .SL,ei.>  r  >  bo  important,  we  beg  the  reader  to  examine  again,  and  sei'  whether  snch  are  any 
thing  more  than  tiiucy  conclusions,  hastily  drawn  from  premises, only  assumed  to  f^xliibit  their 
skill  at  ^'rhetorical flourishes.'''  In  :  uch  exercises,  we  admit  their  "supremacy;"  we  refuse  the 
gauntlet,  lo.ver  our  lances,  and  proclaim  them  the  victors  in  all  combats  of  errantry.  Our  bu- 
sini'ss  is  with  fact.s,  and  though  the  plainness  of  the  garb  may  estrange  us  from  the  f/e«/«r«  in 
fiction,  by  reason  of  its  honv>s))nn  quali  y;  yet  it  commends  itself  on  account  of  the  reminiscen- 
ces of  early  impressions  which  are  brought  in  review  before  us;  it  tells  us  how  satisfied  wc  wore 
wh?n  we  heard  things  always  called  by  their  right  name;;  and  how  sorry  we  felt  for  a  rude, 
listless  neighbour,  whom  we  eavv  checkci!  in  a  mom->nt  of  improper  exultation,  at  the  success  of 
a  llctitioiis  tale,  which  he  had  invented  to  screen  himself  from  public  odium,  by  being  told  that 
fictions  were  lies,  and  "that  a  lie  wa.s  a  desperate  cowardice."  It  was  "fearing  man,  and  braving 
God."  It  reminds  us  tO(>  of  w  hat  our  good  old  parson  used  to  tell  us,  that  "honesty  (whether  in 
war,  or  in  peace,  in  state,  or  in  church)  w;t*  always  th**  best  policy:"  That  "religion  w;is  tho 
hes!  armour  in  the  world,  but  the  worst  clouh."  That  the  more  "honesty  a  man  had,  tht  less  ho 
affected  the  air  ofa  saint:"  "That  the  allectalion  of  Kanclity,  wa.s  a  blotch  on  thj  face  of  piety:" 
That  "ihey  w  ho  could  be  jnifftd  up  by  a  gak;  of  thoughtless  applause,  wouUl  bj  made  to  bend 
beneath  the  force  of  an  honest  reproof,'  and,  that 

"Those  who  were  given  most  to  railing, 
Were  found  to  have  the  greatest  failing." 

In  a  note  at  the  bottom  of  the  last  page  of  the  gentlemen's  book,  an  allusion  is  made  to  an  affi- 
davit of  otirs,  which  they  had.  That  aflidavit  was  made  to  correct  a  misstatement  which  they 
had  sent  to  the  Bishop.  That  atndavit  would  stamp  "recklessness,"  of  a  daring  character,  on 
the  authors  of  the  "Exjiosition  continued,"  especially  as  it  relates  to  their  extraordinary  denial 
of  what  occurred  between  the  comrnitt<v^  appointed  to  prosecute  thc'old  Trustees,  and  the  Preach- 
er in  charge.  That  aflidavit  woidu  have  been  published  in  this  p.imphlei,  but  that  it  implicates 
a  gentleman  of  their  party,  whose  name  is  not  among  the  avouchers  of  their  fictions.  Th«  in- 
sertion of  it  by  us,  tmder  such  circ  umstance.'',  would  savour  of  revenge;  bj'  doing  this  w.*  would 
be  but  even  with  our  enemies;  by  passing  it  over,  we  may  be  superior.  Circumstances  may  ren- 
der it  necessary  to  produce  it  hert-ailer:  if  so,  it  shall  appear  with  other  mattirs  kept  in  reserve. 

Lit  uf  in  Cvinclusior.,  draw  the  ationiion  of  tho  genilemen  to  the  dilemma  into  which  they  have 
brought  themselves,  and  see  whether  the  acumen  of  some,  have  not  been  obscured  by  the  obesi- 
ty of  others.  As  ihey  ap;>ear  to  be  fond  of  logical  deductions,  we  will  cndea\our  to  efleet  a 
lodgment  on  their  parapet  wall,  and  bring  ou:si'hes,  if  possible,  v^iihin  reach  of  their  under- 
standing.    Wo  will  try  a  syllogism  or  tWi>,  and  if  i)eai<n  off.  will  acknowledge  a  d -feat. 

First.  The  gentlemen  pledge?  themselves  in  the  eommoncement  of  their  btK)k,  to  kvilhhold 
nothing  that  was  necessary  to  a  right  nndersUinding  of  the  qurstion  at  issue.  The  pajier  ..ubmil- 
ted  to  thn  BLshop.s,  contained  matter  thai  was  every  w  ay  important  to  a  right  and  fair  understan- 
ding of  tho  case.  They  presented  a  jxirt  only  of  that  pa)X'r,  imllJioldiiig  all  that  could  explain 
thedispul*^;  consequently,  they  did  us  an  injui-y,  and  violated  thi'ir  own  pledge. 

JSecondly.  They  affinn  that  they  always  had  ii  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  male  members 
of  the  ell  irch:  a  minority  of  one-third  caniKti  outvote  tiifo-thirds;  we  ontvoteil  them  on  every  oc- 


lu 

<  a>ii)n,  ewii  wlieii  ihcir  niimrr.s  (alioi  in  aiil  iVnni  liir  lii>i)i\\n)!>  iiiul  hf-dt^o.-,  (sis  uv  csui  pr«jv«' 
ilify  tlid  oil  tlie  niplit  of"  tlip  Tirli  NoMiiiliiT,  IH'SJ,)  tlior«|bn»,  iliry  were  not  n  majority  of  (he 
male  nK'UilxTh  of  llip  church,  and  their  alHriiinlinn  Is — tiirsuslainctl. 

Tlii'(hy.  They  assert  ihiit  wo  li.ul  rxj'/MWv  violaiod  iho  <!i>i'ii'lini\  the  Risliop  is  flie  high'^sf 
aulhi)ri:y  in  expoundinf?  aiscipline;  Hi>h<  p  ?!inor\ ,  (tli"  diocf^saii  of  ihis  char),'.')  ti  Id  as  tlmt  '"if 
the  old 'J'ru-tees  would  c;ase  tlu'ir  o]ipu>iiion,  the  ditlieuliy  would  \'Tmish;''  llier<  fore,  wo  did 
not  violate  the  Dihtiplin-',  and  the  a.isi  -lion  is  unsiippori-Hl. 

Fourthly.  Tli^y  chaifre  nn  with  beiii^:  "given  to  chicanery,"'  "adepts  in riinninjr.'"  "false  w itness- 
css."  "cidprit*,''  Arc.  Sucli  char.-.cters,  the  ch^'.^ch  is  boii.'id  toexpel,  iiidess  tliey  "i-c|ient  dtep- 
ly,"'  "evidence  a  podly  soriow  for  sin,"  and  ''.<iiow  dcej)  contrition."  '1  he  only  rep»  niar.ce  they 
rcquiivd  of  UN  was,  that  UTshnulil  .viihdrawa  .•■■uit  aujainst  ]Mr.  Ling,  nclmow  led(je  iho  old  Trub- 
tee.s.  and  Prcach'jr  in  charge,  as  I<ord.-  jiaramoniii  in  th*.^  church;  n^d  conNPijnenily.wc  were  not 
what  they  .•■o  niode>ily  lu»ve  asserted  we  were. 

Fifthly.  They  as.seri  than  hoy  had  not  the  iacau.«  of  carrying  the  wishes  of  th-'  Quarterly 
<'oiifereiice  into  execution,  in  rcspot  t  to  the  Reparation  of  ik-^topk  from  ainoni^  the  w  hit;-  inein- 
her.s:  the  means  new.isary  was  s«/_i/ f/f)Wnr.t;  they  have  since  purcha.'^i-d  ihv  Academy  of  I-'iiie 

Art.--,  (to  accommodate  the }  at  tlirrr  /housjitdfivc  humlrcd  tioHarf,  consrquontly  ihowant 

of  in-^ians,  was  not  the  cause  of  the  r.  I'lisal. 

Sixthly.  They  dcnoiuice  all  w  ho  opjjo.sc  I h'-  di.-cipUne  and  economy  of  the  church,  ns  pt'rmns- 
who  wad;  not  with  (Jod,  n;:tl  who  are  pu illy  of  personal  irr^trulariiit  s:  there  nri'  fnrlirtliree 
thousand  Mcihodi-st  Protesianls  in  the  Unitcfl  States,  wlsooppo.se  the  discipline  and  t  conomj-  of 
their  church;  con.scquently,  these  43,000  reformers,  together  with  every  person  of  other  denoini- 
natioiu,  who  a;.'roe  with  u.s  in  matters  of  church  government,  arc  guilty  of  personal  irregulari- 
ties, and  of  waiiiinc:  with  thedcvil. 

Seventhly.  Thry  charge  us  with  not  discovering  any  error  in  ihi-  di-i.-^ipline,  or  n\  their  adinin- 
i.strati(>n  of  it,  until  our  expulsion:  we  discovf  rt-d  the  errors  in  the  discij^line,  a»id  their  adminis- 
tration of  it,  a  y^ai  ago,  ai;d  oppo-  d  ir.  1  hey  appointed  a  comtaitte v->  of  tha  Preachers  and  sev- 
en nu.'mb;;r»,  five  beiri^'j  congenial  .tpiriln,  and  thrust  us  out,  w  hi  n  we  give  a  praciicid  illustration 
of  our  dwcovery;  and  corstqncrily  'h?  illustration  of  a  proposition  isvith  them  the  evidence  of 
the  non-existence  of  a  fact. 

We  here  class  with  these  gen'Ifmen,  and  is  wo  v?rily  believ j  that  the  love  of  now  er  with 
them  i.^a  parDinoum  conddbriitio.'i,  v\  •>  eume ■•tly  exhort  them  'ocasta.side  "the  sin  that  s-o  easily 
besrt.'!  th'-m,'  to  b^  nistant  in  prajL-r,  fo  remen-bcr  the  ftte  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira;  to  as!-;  for- 
giveness whik'  i*  iaypt  lo-diy.Ie.jt  while  they  .\ccm  fo  labour  I'.jr  others,  thry  thcm.selvcs  nhottld 
become  casta^^  ayh. 

Note. — If  it  is  asked  why  so  lit'le  allusion  is  made  to  o«eofthc  ihree  authors  of  th3"ETp<)si- 
tion  continue*),"  we  answer,  because,  "hfatuun  perinde  ar  ovia,  bv.  ht  direnit,  incedil." 


